Template talk:US National Guard by state

Redlinks
Fifty links, all redirects back to the only page where this template is used. I would hope somebody is planning on making some of these articles soon. Danthemankhan 06:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. It looks like some of them existed at one time and were all redirected back. Chris 20:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like some of them are fixed, but definitely NGbystate and United States National Guard need to get in sync. &mdash; MrDolomite | Talk 07:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Guam

 * Doesn't Guam have a few National Guard units as well? 156.98.187.230 (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Philippines
I see that the historical, but very short lived, Philippine National Guard is given no mention here. --207.114.206.48 (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added it.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   12:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --207.114.206.48 (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Template:NGbystate be merged with Template:US ANG by state and Template:US ARNG by state. I believe that consolidation would aid navigation, save some wasted space, and cut down on the duplicate entries.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣  00:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've started a discussion at Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 20.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣  00:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * [copy/pasting discussion from TfD - start]

I'm requesting a merge because I believe that these templates would work better as a single template. They share a similar structure and topic, and many of the links are matched between the three individual navboxes (meaning that all three link to the same article for a given state). it saves space and aids navigation to have them consolidated. I've also posted my suggestion here.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣  00:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose because the army and air National Guard are two different things. We've split many National Guard pages based on this. I can see why you want to merge the templates but if we give it time, people will split the pages into their respective locations. We probably should put a bulletin out there notifying people of this because otherwise this discussion might lead to something not being done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If anything, the army national guard template is more like the national guard one, since when you say "National Guard", you usually mean the army portion. They could be merged but it probably won't solve any problems and someone is bound to disagree with it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, I would definately support having two navboxes instead of three. If, as you say, the NG articles are being split into ArmyNG and AFNG, then it would eventually happen anyway. Looking at Template:US ANG by state, I don't see too many states without an AFNG article, and most of the links in Template:US ARNG by state show that they also have thier own articles as well. That alone tells me that the Army and the Air Force navboxes can stand on thier own without a third generic NG navbox (Template:NGbystate) that mostly just links to articles that act as disabmiguation pages (like Alabama National Guard).
 * I invite you to invite as many editors as you like, too many TfD discussions stall from lack of discussion.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣  20:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * [copy/pasted discussion from TfD end - Nabla (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)]

While I would not object to a merger of the three, however it would be very tricky. You would have to create a template the shows each state's Army National Guard and Air National Guard under the umbrella of the state's National Guard. Also, all state's National Guard are also linked to the National Guard of the United States and it's subcomponents, the Army National Guard of the United States and the Air National Guard of the United States. You may also have to show the correlation between National Guard (militia force) and the National Guard of the United States (reserve military force) so people do not confuse between the two even though they are linked. Neovu79 (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry it took so long. User:Bahamut0013/sandbox is what I had in mind. The images might be up for some change, as having all three might be cluttered... but I think having both represents both branches nicely.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   04:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Silence is consent! I'll give a few more days, then make the merge unless somebody objects.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   00:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge done, I've begun replace all instances of the depricated navbox with the mother.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   22:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done! all work is complete.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   18:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)