Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/United States military history task force/Archive 1

message: I can see right now the section on categories is going to take up a lot of room if much more is included. However, I think it would be very helpful to have a more complete list of categories, done in a sort of heirarchical format, to make categorizing easier. If there is one thing I have noticed in the past couple of days, it's that virtually all the military categories are a mess. Overlap, mis-categorization, redundancy, non-standard category naming, you name it. Without some sort of visual aid - a "tree" so to speak, the task will be much much harder, and take much longer. Can a separate page for a list of categories be made, and just link the main page to it? Nobunaga24 09:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think then I would ask if at least for now allow me to expand it a bit so I can keep track while I attempt to try to make some headway. I'll revert it back to more barebones later. Right now it realy helps while trying to organize. I typically do this with 2 or more windows open, and use that as a reference. Additionally, I'm thinking of proposing a merge between :Category:Awards and decorations of the United States military and :Category:Badges of the United States military. Then from a merger, breaking down the awards by branch. Any thoughts? I don't want to be a bull in the china shop, but it's been driving me nuts for a while. Incidentally, I've been purposely avoiding Marine and Navy stuff--I know that's your baby (the Marine articles), and I know too little about either one to do more than fix spelling error. Nobunaga24 10:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should each stay within our own lanes for now.  I'm comfortable with the USMC list as it is now.  I have no problem with yourself and others working on the Army pages.  The individuals that are editing US military pages on Wikipedia at the moment are still a small community and we each have a good feel for each other. --Looper5920 10:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category section on main page 

message: I noticed after I created the category there were some that weren't MACOMs - go ahead and tag it for renaming - I'll support it. For example, CASCOM isn't a MACOM. --Nobunaga24 22:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too would like to add my support for this. --Siva1979Talk to me 06:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Army Major Commands 

message: I'm currently building up userbox templates conforming to the the style found on the Military history WikiProject. I'll be building one for this task force if its members dont mind. What would be a defining image representing the United States Military History? Your help is appreacited.Dryzen 13:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be consistent I have used the same image as can be found on the task force notice. Dryzen 14:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: === Medal of Honor recipients ===
There are over 350 pages in the :Category:Medal of Honor recipients.  Of these, approximately 140 are from the Marine Corps.  (There are 294 Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients to date.) 
I propose the breaking these into subcategories:
* :Category:Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients
* :Category:Navy Medal of Honor recipients
* :Category:Army Medal of Honor recipients
* :Category:Air Force Medal of Honor recipients
Each would be a subcategory of both
* :Category:Medal of Honor recipients and
* their respective service "people" category, i.e.
** :Category:United States Marine Corps people
** :Category:United States Navy people
** :Category:United States Army people
** :Category:United States Air Force people
—ERcheck @ 03:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of curiosity, why the different breakdown structure for the MoH versus the others?  I would have thought that all medals could be subdivided identically. Kirill Lokshin 03:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, ok.  Just as some things to consider: the last time we discussed categories for military people in the project as a whole, the plan was to have breakdowns both by country/service and by period/war; if we ever manage to sort out that category structure, you'd have both categories available for an article (e.g. :Category:Marine Corps Purple Heart recipients and :Category:World War II veterans, or something like that).  On the other hand, that discussion wasn't very conclusive; and since it may be a while before any general guidelines are developed, you should probably go with whatever's more convenient for you for the time being. Kirill Lokshin 04:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel comfortable about boldly implementing the Marine Corps category for Medal of Honor recipients (as I have created ~80 of the articles).  I'll start there.  If there or no objections or if general supportive consensus, I will set up the structure for the other services. —ERcheck @ 04:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections from me.  I suspect you're likely the only person working in that area right now, so it may be that nobody else will bother to comment ;-) Kirill Lokshin 04:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too have no objections on this. Good luck! --Siva1979Talk to me 06:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal on Categories -  specific on Medal of Honor recipients and general on medals 

message: There are over 350 pages in the :Category:Medal of Honor recipients.  Of these, approximately 140 are from the Marine Corps.  (There are 294 Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients to date.) 
I propose the breaking these into subcategories:
* :Category:Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients
* :Category:Navy Medal of Honor recipients
* :Category:Army Medal of Honor recipients
* :Category:Air Force Medal of Honor recipients
Each would be a subcategory of both
* :Category:Medal of Honor recipients and
* their respective service "people" category, i.e.
** :Category:United States Marine Corps people
** :Category:United States Navy people
** :Category:United States Army people
** :Category:United States Air Force people
—ERcheck @ 03:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medal of Honor recipients 

message: Examples from other medals:
* :Category:Navy Cross recipients - 153 pages
* :Category:Recipients of the Purple Heart medal - 310 pages
These categories have a sufficient number of articles to break into subcategories.  An alternative to subcategories by service would be by conflict, e.g. :Category:World War I recipients of the Purple Heart.  
—ERcheck @ 03:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of curiosity, why the different breakdown structure for the MoH versus the others?  I would have thought that all medals could be subdivided identically. Kirill Lokshin 03:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, ok.  Just as some things to consider: the last time we discussed categories for military people in the project as a whole, the plan was to have breakdowns both by country/service and by period/war; if we ever manage to sort out that category structure, you'd have both categories available for an article (e.g. :Category:Marine Corps Purple Heart recipients and :Category:World War II veterans, or something like that).  On the other hand, that discussion wasn't very conclusive; and since it may be a while before any general guidelines are developed, you should probably go with whatever's more convenient for you for the time being. Kirill Lokshin 04:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel comfortable about boldly implementing the Marine Corps category for Medal of Honor recipients (as I have created ~80 of the articles).  I'll start there.  If there or no objections or if general supportive consensus, I will set up the structure for the other services. —ERcheck @ 04:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections from me.  I suspect you're likely the only person working in that area right now, so it may be that nobody else will bother to comment ;-) Kirill Lokshin 04:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too have no objections on this. Good luck! --Siva1979Talk to me 06:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other military decorations 

message: Please correct me if I am wrong — for members of the U.S. Army Air Forces (pre-1947) who have been awarded the Medal of Honor for action prior to formation of the USAF, I am categorizing these Medal of Honor recipients as members of the U.S. Army.  Yes? —ERcheck @ 01:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * After discussions with Rlevse and Looper5920 and review of Air Force history, Air Force publications, since USAAF is the direct predecessor of the USAF, the USAAF Medalof Honor recipients are being placed in the Air Force category.  An explanation is on the :Category:Air Force Medal of Honor recipients page and the :Category:Army Medal of Honor recipients page. —ERcheck @ 11:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question on U.S. Army Air Forces versus U.S. Air Force

message: Does this project want to cover articles on military events on territory that is now the United States, or just conflicts in which the United States fought? While assessing, I ran across Battle of Kepaniwai, and was unsure as to whether it should recieve this project's tag. UnDeadGoat 20:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say both, within reason (no medieval Phillipine warfare or the like); that follows the other national task forces, which include historical states within the territory of the modern one. Kirill Lokshin 20:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question of scope 

message: Apologies if this is not the right place to raise this but I am after the view of someone with better US military history than me- specifically about Patton and his 1913 sword design. If anyone has some background on this please have a look at the comments on 
Talk:1908 and 1912 Pattern British Army Cavalry Swords. Thanks Epeeist smudge 12:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Patton and his Sword

message: In writing articles about the early Governors of the USVI, Guam, American Samoa, etc., which were administered by the Navy, it seems that most of the people I've done articles about eventually became Rear Admirals. How common is this? Or, to put it in a more applicable way, does being a Rear Admiral (or higher) automatically make one "Notable" for Wikipedia? JRP 21:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certain jobs have always been assigned to certain ranks. In this case, Rear Admiral - two-star Admiral. At the time of America's colonial period, few navy Officers made it above Rear Admiral before retirement UNLESS a war came along, wheeapon a select few made it to Vice Admiral, and fewer still made it to full Admiral. The rank of Commodore wtill existed at the time, but most of them were in back-water assignments - especially if they were senior - or else they were assistants to Rear Admirals who commanded fleets or squadrons. Likewise, only Rear Admirals wee tapped for "Governorship" because they were judged experienced and educated enough to preform the task adequately. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 22:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: USN Rear Admirals

message: I added an article on USARS from AR 600-82. It still needs some work.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 07:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  USARS page inserted. 

message: Recently Updated Lineage and Honors Information
*Updated Lineage and Honors Information has been posted for the following units and is available through the Online Lineage and Honors link on the Force Structure and Unit History Branch section of the Center of Military History Website.
===Civil Affairs===
96th Civil Affairs Battalion 
===Military Intelligence=== 
# 163d Military Intelligence Battalion (The Blue Watch)
# 201st Military Intelligence Battalion
# 205th Military Intelligence Battalion
# 185th Military Intelligence Company 
===Military Police=== 
# Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment, 709th Military Police Battalion
# Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment, 759th Military Police Battalion (Lone Sentinel) 
# 65 Military Police Company 
===Ordnance & Maintenance=== 
# Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment, 320th Ordnance Battalion
# 13th Ordnance Company
# 18th Ordnance Company
# 23d Ordnance Company
# 38th Ordnance Company
# 503d Maintenance Company
# 731st Ordnance Company 
===Signal Corps===
# 1st Signal Center
# 556th Signal Company 
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 17:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  USACMH: Recently Updated Lineage and Honors Information 

message: # 1st Signal Center
# 556th Signal Company 
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 17:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Signal Corps

message: Recently Added Items
 
*These images were recently added to the web site.  The Institute of Heraldry has an ongoing project to digitize images (older images were drawn by hand and to accomplish digitization, they must be redone on the computer). As this project is being done on a "as time permits basis", we are currently working on items in use only.  Therefore, some images are new and some are older but were recently digitized.  This page was last updated:  7 Jul 2006.
  
143d Sustainment Command
19th Sustainment Command
US Army Star Logo Patch
17th Field Artillery Regiment
146th Medical Battalion
Special Troops Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division
167th Support Battalion
398th Support Battalion
 
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 18:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  USA Institute of Heraldry Recently Added Items 

message: Does anyone know where an image of this badge can be located? I have been working on articals that reference it (Outstanding Airman of the Year Ribbon and Badges of the United States Air Force) and so far any versions of it on the internet have been lacking. Thanks!--Darkstar949 20:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, fresh eyes and fresh brain now--I can't find the badge on any search engine, either.  Sorry. But I did note that the picture of the ribbon you have on the article differs slightly from photos I've seen of the ribbon that resemble the example displayed here.  Are there two different styles? ScreaminEagle 19:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I have been in touch with one of the coordinators for the program and they were kind enough to send me a picture of the badge - I have started work on the article (Outstanding Airman badge) it still needs a bit of work though. I think the ribbon in that link might be a bit off - the one on the AF site is accurate to the one on the books. --Darkstar949 03:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  USAF Outstanding Airman Badge 

message: USAIOH has posted seals and emblems as follows:
* US Navy
* US Air Force
* US Marine Corps
* US Coast Guard
* US Department of Defense
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 13:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  USAIOH has new seals and emblems posted 

message: ...why we have both these redundant seeming categories: 
:Category:Battleships of the United States and :Category:Battleships of the United States Navy? I don't see a reason for such two nearly identical names and think the one that doesn't match the commons should be deprecated by  pending final clearing out. Unfortunately, that's the second and most populated one, so the 'Interwiki Adjustment' can be done the other way... it's easier to delete categories on the commons anyway. So that means the first should be killed here. 
*Anyone active here that is 'into categories' should take a close look at the interwiki tagging system being tested on those two, and diverse other places, but including :Category:North Carolina class battleships and :Category:United_States_Navy_submarines under this project. If you'd be interested in cross-linking some cats to the commons, and vice-versa, the template system is pretty much debugged save for final name selection, and possibly a modification to auto-position such left, right or centered as needed. Drop me a note, preferably by email, and I'll draw up a quick how-to and do and don't do lists. Best regards // <B>Fra</B>nkB 06:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think this is due to WP:SHIPS currently having a big fight over what the category names should be.  Once they get that resolved, I expect the redundant categories will be disposed of in short order. Kirill Lokshin 06:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be nice... I just found :Category:Battleships_of_the_United_States I'd been through too! Guess I'll have to go weigh in. Strikes me that the commons cats need some more cosmopolitan weight here. // <B>Fra</B>nkB 15:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We over at WP:SHIPS would definitely appreciate all of you weighing in on the issue.  There's currently debate over whether ships should be categorized by country, navy, or both.  It's kind of a complicated issue; sometimes a navy changes names, and sometimes a country changes names.  Often the name of the navy doesn't immediately indicate the name of the country.  There's a lot of support for both sides and we may honestly wind up doing both as a compromise.  :Category:Battleships of the United States and :Category:Battleships of the United States Navy seem silly, but do :Category:Battleships of Germany and :Category:Battleships of the Kriegsmarine sound quite as redundant, especially since the Kriegsmarine was Germany's navy for a very specific period?  Either way, if you'd like to weigh in, please come over! TomTheHand 17:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone know 

message: This regards the List of battleships of the United States Navy / Split Talk Proposal // <B>Fra</B>nkB 06:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Article Split 

message: Help with the article about this KIA from afganistan and the controversy about placing a wiccan symbol on his grave. Thanks for your time and service.Hypnosadist 22:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help with [[Sgt. Patrick Stewart]]

message: What do you guys think about this -->:Category:United States 7th Cavalry Regiment people? Personally, I am against it. If we start doing that, it's going to get totally out of control. Before I tag it for deletion wanted to get some opinions from here. If for some reason people here want to keep it, I won't tag it, but I think I'm already guessing the answer.--Nobunaga24 22:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh.  This might be doable as a list, but certainly not as a category.  We don't want every officer to wind up with dozens of categories, one for each unit they were a part of. Kirill Lokshin 22:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll tag it, but I would like the people in this group to vote on the category for deletion page - too many times I've seen military related categories for deletion just to have every person without a clue about the military piping in to keep it/delete it - most recently the military leaders category where the one individual said "Alexander the Great can be classified as a general, or whatever" - classic.--Nobunaga24 23:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad precedent 

message: If anybody's interested, I'm trying to clean up or at least make the Bernard Montgomery a bit less gushingly positive, as it is now - basically, the article says he's the greatest general ever and everyone who complained about him is wrong. If anybody else has more knowledge on the subject, please stop by. --Awiseman 20:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bernard Montgomery shenanigans 

message: These images were recently added to the web site.  The Institute of Heraldry has an ongoing project to digitize images (older images were drawn by hand and to accomplish digitization, they must be redone on the computer). As this project is being done on a "as time permits basis", we are currently working on items in use only.  Therefore, some images are new and some are older but were recently digitized.  This page was last updated:  24 Jul 2006.
# Bel Air High School JROTC, El Paso, TX
# Texas Military Institute JROTC, San Antonio, TX
# Ben Lomond High School JROTC, Ogden, UT
# Bassett High School JROTC, Bassett, VA
# Benedictine High School JROTC, Richmond, VA
# Colonial Forge High School JROTC, Stafford, VA
# 75th Fires Brigade
# 104th Division (Institutional Training)
# Bethel Regional High School JROTC, Bethel AK
# Metter High School JROTC, Metter, GA
# Bonanza High School JROTC, Las Vegas, NV
# Barnwell High School JROTC, Barnwell, SC
# Washington-Marion Magnet High School JROTC, Lake Charles, LA
# New Brunswick High School JROTC, New Brunswick, NJ
# Los Lunas High School JROTC, Los Lunas, NM
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 07:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional USAIOH insignia available 

message: *In [Wikipedia:WikiGnome|wikignoming]] thru , I thought Shouldn't United States Third Army and U.S. Third Army be flipped on the redirect to be consistent with the naming conventions of the others?  Does it matter and/or is it a big deal to fix this?  — MrDolomite | Talk 22:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as the US Department of Defense is concerned, the proper naming convention for Field Armies, and their counterparts in the other four services is as follows: "Armies are numbered in series beginning with“ First. ” Examples: First United States Army, Fifth United States Army." Any other naming convention is non-standard, and strictly unofficial. BTW, this naming convention is in conformity with the rest of the world, since - during the two world wars - the French and British followed the same naming convention.
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 19:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization question about field armies 

message: The following is from this week's ARMY TIMES. You can consider that source material.SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 01:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 24th Infantry Division to inactivate

message: I saw here that there was no US military portal, which I now recall never have seen.  I would like to change that, barring any objections from ya'll.  Name is my first concern, follow Portal:Military of Australia with Portal:Military of the United States of America or Portal:The United States of America Military(or even without the America, as the task force is named)?  I just looked thru the military categories, every article I saw goes by Military of XXX, so I'll start there.  I like Portal:United States Marine Corps, and would try to follow it's layout. 
 
Please take a look at the other portals that I either started or basically started, Portal:Texas, Portal:Numismatics and Portal:European Union, and let me know of any concerns about why this shouldn't be a portal?  Once I get one started, go there and tell me what you'd like to see.  Joe  I 11:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support such a portal. The subject matter certainly is rich with ingredients for a good portal. I would think it an excellent subportal for War; the USMC portal, inevitable service branch portals, and relevant subject matter portals would link underneath. BusterD 11:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good idea.  Please let me know when you start it so I can link to it from Portal:War. Kirill Lokshin 13:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: (And let the USMC portal and the US government portal know as well; they'll likely be interested in closer linkage.) Kirill Lokshin 13:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: United States Military Portal

message: Recently Updated Lineage and Honors Information
*Updated Lineage and Honors Information has been posted for the following units and is available through the Online Lineage and Honors link on the Force Structure and Unit History Branch section of the Center of Military History Website.
===Air Defense Artillery===
*Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 94th Army Air and Missile Defense Command 
===Field Artillery===
*2nd Battalion, 12th Field Artillery Regiment
*5th Battalion, 82nd Field Artillery Regiment
===Military Intelligence===
45th Military Intelligence Company 
===Military Police===
*Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment, 97th Military Police Battalion
*Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment, 525th Military Police Battalion 
===Ordnance & Maintenance===
*Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 332nd Ordnance Battalion 
===Psycological Operations===
*Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 4th Psychological Operations Group
*1st Psychological Operations Battalion
*3rd Psychological Operations Battalion
*6th Psychological Operations Battalion
*8th Psychological Operations Battalion
*9th Psychological Operations Battalion
===Signal Corps===
*3rd Signal Center
*472nd Signal Company
===Special Forces===
*39th Special Forces Detachment, 1st Special Forces
===Support===
*575th Support Company
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 15:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  USACMH: Recently Updated Lineage and Honors Information 

message: *575th Support Company
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 15:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: *These images were recently added to the web site.  The Institute of Heraldry has an ongoing project to digitize images (older images were drawn by hand and to accomplish digitization, they must be redone on the computer). As this project is being done on a "as time permits basis", we are currently working on items in use only.  Therefore, some images are new and some are older but were recently digitized.  This page was last updated:  2006-08-14.
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 17:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional USAIOH insignia available