Talk:Caserma Ederle

Technical and cleanup-restructure
What exactly does "dependent" mean in "A soldier assigned to a tour of duty at Caserma Ederle is normally permitted to bring dependents for the Permanent Change of Station."? The link redirects to a disambiguation page. Why is it in the introduction of the article? It seems to be a detail to me. Cleanup and explanation needed. Thanks. --Edcolins 22:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The person that wrote that means dependent (law) - in this case, a spouse, children under 21 or 23 (23 only if a full-time student) or permanently disabled, parents if permanently disabled - the problem is, that's a red link right now. &mdash; CJewell (talk to me) 14:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I added the link. Even if red, it is better than to have a link leading to the disambiguation page, IMHO. A stub could be created with the matter already in the disambiguation page (three lines, not that bad...) --Edcolins 20:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Family Members
Family members is now the common usage recognized within the DoD community. The term military dependent is somewhat dated (i.e. Pre-1990). v/r Peter Rimar —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chitrapa (talk • contribs) 03:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

I've been on active duty since 1996 and I've heard dependant used much more than family member when one is referring to official DoD activities and units. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.196.186 (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What is that?!?
Who have wrote these idiot things?

"The Communist Refoundation Party (PRC), the Party of Italian Communists (PDCI), the Greens, and a part of the Democrats of the Left (DS) and of the Margherita parties opposed the plan by organising a two-days opposition protest during which participants repeatedly tried to break into the base and/or to throw Molotov flammable bottlebombs at cars or people who were supposed to be American"

These things had never happened, as i'm italian and i know about it. This is an outrageous disinformation.

Nomenclature for units
This is taken from the article page:

The 509th Infantry Regiment (Airborne Brigade Combat Team - ABCT) was previously placed under the command of SETAF in 1973 and later deactivated in the mid-1980s; it was replaced by the 4/325th Infantry Regiment (82nd Airborne Division). The 4/325th ABCT was composed of three line companies (including a COHORT company - Angry Alpha), a headquarters company, a combat-support company, and a 105mm artillery battery.

I believe the original author may be mixing unit designations from different time periods. If 509th Inf Rgt was a "combat team," it would have been a "regimental combat team" or "RCT." Also, 4/325th Inf Rgt would be more correctly written as 4-325 as it is a regiment's battalion as opposed to a brigade's battalion which would be written 4/325. Also, 4-325 would better be referred to as a battalion task force as opposed to a brigade combat team considering it was a battalion sized unit with additional attachments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.196.186 (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)