Talk:United States Army Chemical School

Requested move
Self explanatory, the article describes a military facility, and "chemical school" is simply not specific enough. Zadanian


 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~ 

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments


 * I agree with the move, but I would prefer United States Army Chemical School, since that seems official. But if that's not agreed to, I would support the move as suggested.  Also, I would only support a move if somebody is willing to check/fix all the backlinks, which seems to be a lot (although maybe they're all just from the template, I can't tell).  --rob 02:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with rob... I initially proposed Chemical School (U.S. Army) only because it was in line with what other wikipedia articles on TRADOC schools had used; however, I think that United States Army Chemical School is much better.  Another concern is how many links go to this page, I am also unaware whether it is a template or not.  Also, on another note, the template used on this page (ie. name, location, motto, picture, commandant) is a good example of what other TRADOC pages should use.  Zadanian 00:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I did a quick rough count and about 23/24 back links exist, which is about equal to the number of blue-links in the included template.  So, it does appear if the article is moved, and the template edited, that almost all backlinks will be gone soon.  However, I haven't verified this (by visiting every other article), and I think the only way of knowing is to go ahead and do it.  I'm not doing it myself right now, becaues I've experienced a number of time-outs/not-responding errors with wikipedia, and I don't want to start something I can't finish.  But, it seems ok to go ahead when somebody with the time/willingnesses wishes to.  --rob 00:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Result: page moved to United States Army Chemical School. -- Eugene van der Pijll 18:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * minor note: Many articles continue to show up as back-links for the re-direct, however that's only because they haven't been resaved.  It seems "What links here?" doesn't handle links from a template properly, until after the article containing the template is re-saved.  So, despite appearances, it seems all uses of the re-direct (made by the move) were fixed when the template was fixed.  --rob 10:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)