Talk:Divisions of the United States Army

Untitled
JK, would you kindly indicate why you've just undone all my hard work of the last few hours? There is no size limit yet on the page, and inserting the additional material presents a more complete picture of US army divisional history. Also, why did you reinsert the main category, several levels up, when this article is already listed in the subcats, which is what they're there for? Buckshot06(prof) 23:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not category link, but a page link. Someone created a "Formations" page a while ago, and that's where that leads. I don't recall intentionally reinserting it, but I'll move it to a "See Also" section. Anyway, those "Formations" pages need to be fixed and/or deleted, since they're a muddled mess.


 * As far as undoing the work, this page is primarily a listing, and does not elaborate on individual division histories or reasons for activation/deactivation (which the "Unorganized Divisions" page does. Any information that it does contain serves merely to explain any perceived discrepancies between dates of activity and possible nomenclature intentions. I'm also a bit alarmed that the "Phantom Divisions" page was deleted, as I've finally acquired a ton of primary sources, but now have nowhere to put the information.
 * I'd say great, more info, but unfortunately we cannot use primary sources. Has to be published first. See WP:V. Buckshot06(prof) 12:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Since when, exactly, can't primary sources be published works?JKGolden (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You could send a notification first, you know, instead of just making changes that don't really fit the intent of the article. You probably haven't checked, but I have been making changes on other pages according to many of your earlier suggestions (page deletions, redirects, etc.), so I'm just asking for the benefit of the doubt, here.JKGolden (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The intent of the article is.. up for discussion - and everybody's able to stick their oar in. The person who came up with the original idea/intent was me, and elaboration would fit with that. I've asked user:Nick-D for a third opinion. Buckshot06(prof) 12:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, everyone can stick their oar in it, so to speak. And go ahead and claim the original idea if you'd like, but please don't leave out the fact that you suggested to model the US divisions article after other pages which, as far as I can see, are primarily lists, as well. Can we do an "Evolution of Divisions" article? Sure, of course, but that still wouldn't be a list, which is what this page is and always has been. Taking the entry from "Unorganized Divisions" and plugging it in here results in a page that has more descriptive information from a very, very minor aspect of its history than it does the actual topic. For a so-called encyclopedia, that's ridiculous.JKGolden (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

 * Oppose Merger It looks like several folks have been vigorously editing the Divisions of World War II page since the 2009 nomination. Despite the title of that list, it includes not only United States Army divisions, but also United States Marine Corps Divisions, so I would recommend changing the article title to delete the apparent limitation to the Army (perhaps also something that would note the article does not include Air Divisions) and remove the merger tag.

--Lineagegeek (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)--Lineagegeek (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Divisions of the United States Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121226124441/http://www.history.army.mil/books/Lineage/M-F/index.htm to http://www.history.army.mil/books/Lineage/M-F/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)