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

Apparent Cooperation from US Army Center of Military History
I took a deep look over on the CMH website, and I am getting the feeling that they are reading what we are publishing here, and have decided to focus their new postings on our needs. Until we started these projects, they were taking their time posting things, but - since we have started in earnest - they are now posting information that is just what we need to flesh out our articles. For example, the manpower and casualtiy reports for conflicts, and a lot of things that have been available at seperate locations, but now focused in one area. Of course, I don't know that for sure, but I have noticed that they are taking a distinct interest. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 01:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Very interesting. I wonder if it would be possible to ask them to consider doing accuracy reviews of articles going up for peer review within the project; that could be the first element of our long-desired expert review system.  Kirill Lok s  h in 02:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I know that they don't do that for people who use their services live on their premises. They function as a repository of US Army historial materials, and as a Research Library. What they might do would be to refer you to someone who would be ready, willing, and able to do that kind of service."

Here is what they have to say about direct requests:


 * "Please remember that we are not designed to be interactive, and are not staffed to answer public electronic inquiries. These requests will be answered only as our other missions permit. A timeframe for a response cannot be estimated."


 * "Please include a post office mailing address with your request in case enclosures are required to respond to your inquiry."


 * "If no address is provided with your initial request enclosures will not be sent."


 * Click here to submit your request:
 * cmhanswers@hqda.army.mil

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 21:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I would want the army mucking around on articles anyway. They are not neutral at all, and it's even been reported that they are trying to "help" bloggers by providing information (always upbeat, never 100% accurate). They actually have a small detachment now whose job is to scan blogs, etc., looking for things they can "assist" with (as reported by CNN, and even on the DoD PAO page - they are quite proud apparently of this new activity). One look at army web sites shows shows that NPOV is not a military priority. I think there are enough ex-military here that peer review could be done by wikipedians. I'm starting to suspect that some articles are being "tweaked" by military people whose first priority is putting the military in a better light (no, I'm not a conspiracy theorist; just look at some of the articles, especially army ones). Nobunaga24 03:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we have the capability of editing ourselves, especially now that the first hand information has been made available to us. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 06:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Category section on main page
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)
 * I agree that there needs to be some standardization amongst the categories. I think we need to minimalize as much as possible.  We need to assume a certain amount of intelligence amongst our users.  I realize that there are some that will say that assuming "Makes an ass out of u and me."  However I believe that there is no reason to list every category under each service.  Let people do a little bit of surfing on their own.  I believe that a main tree on the main page will be good enough.--Looper5920 09:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Instead of messing around with the main page, I've started a sandbox for the categories at User:Nobunaga24/Sandbox. I've added comments next to categories, and I'm arranging them in a "tree" that reflects how the categories are currently set up. Anyone in this task force is welcome to go there and add comments, rearrange the tree, etc, etc, Nobunaga24 08:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting naming mess on some of those. Since we're discussing general guidelines for categories of military people on the main project page now, I would encourage you to drop by and let us know if any of the proposals would be a problem to implement for the U.S. Thanks! Kirill Lok s  h in 11:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

US Army Major Commands
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)
 * I too would like to add my support for this. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  06:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Templates
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)
 * 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)

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: Each would be a subcategory of both &mdash;ERcheck @ 03:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 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
 * 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

Other military decorations
Examples from other medals: 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.
 * Category:Navy Cross recipients - 153 pages
 * Category:Recipients of the Purple Heart medal - 310 pages

&mdash;ERcheck @ 03:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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 Lok s  h in 03:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was just putting out alternatives for discussion. It would certainly be more straightforward to subcat by service.  &mdash;ERcheck @ 03:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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 Lok s  h in 04:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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. &mdash;ERcheck @ 04:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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 Lok s  h in 04:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I too have no objections on this. Good luck! -- S iva1979 Talk to me  06:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Update: Conversion for Marine Corps Medal of Honor recipients has started. Over 90 completed. &mdash;ERcheck @ 07:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

&mdash;ERcheck @ 22:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Update 2: Over 130 articles now categorized for the Marine Corps. The Air Force, Army, and Navy subcategories have been created and seeded with articles.

Question on U.S. Army Air Forces versus U.S. Air Force
Please correct me if I am wrong &mdash; 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? &mdash;ERcheck @ 01:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * See the msg I left on ERcheck's talk page. Rlevse 23:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 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. &mdash;ERcheck @ 11:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Military person info box
Anyone else think that on the Infobox Military Person the "allegiance= " line should be changed to "Branch of service" or something along those lines? "Allegiance" sounds like Dungeons and Dragons talk, and seems a bit fuzzy. Maybe it's more appropriate for ancient warfare, but it seems a bit strange when used for modern professional armies. Same for the Infobox Military Unit when applied to modern armies. I've seen it used in different ways, e.g. as "Federal," "State" (for National Guard). I don't think the correct usage is very clear, and in addition, I think component would be a better term than allegiance. The line "command_structure= " too might be better replaced, perhaps with "higher_headquarters= ". Maybe a separate US military template should be created. Thoughts, anyone?--Nobunaga24 02:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We could certainly add a branch parameter to the person infobox (although I've seen the branch inserted into the country field before); the "allegiance" label was really intended for leaders that didn't serve an (independent) country. Ditto for the unit infobox (but doesn't that one have a separate branch field?).
 * As far as "Higher headquarters": we could do one of those little label-override tricks that are used for things like the ceremonial commander field, but is it worth the trouble? Alternately, is there a term that's both better than "Command structure" and not tied quite as much to modern army structures as "Higher headquarters"? Kirill Lokshin 03:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as a separate template is concerned, I don't believe that would be either necessary or desirable. The whole point of creating these standardized templates was to avoid needing to maintain a separate set of templates for every country. Kirill Lokshin 03:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

A question of scope
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)


 * 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)

Patton and his Sword
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)

USN Rear Admirals
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)
 * 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)

USARS page inserted.
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)

USACMH: Recently Updated Lineage and Honors Information
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

 * 1) 163d Military Intelligence Battalion (The Blue Watch)
 * 2) 201st Military Intelligence Battalion
 * 3) 205th Military Intelligence Battalion
 * 4) 185th Military Intelligence Company

Military Police

 * 1) Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment, 709th Military Police Battalion
 * 2) Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment, 759th Military Police Battalion (Lone Sentinel)
 * 3) 65 Military Police Company

Ordnance & Maintenance

 * 1) Headquarters and Headquarters Detachment, 320th Ordnance Battalion
 * 2) 13th Ordnance Company
 * 3) 18th Ordnance Company
 * 4) 23d Ordnance Company
 * 5) 38th Ordnance Company
 * 6) 503d Maintenance Company
 * 7) 731st Ordnance Company

Signal Corps

 * 1) 1st Signal Center
 * 2) 556th Signal Company

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 17:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

USA Institute of Heraldry Recently Added Items
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)

USAF Outstanding Airman Badge
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

USAIOH has new seals and emblems posted
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)

Does anyone know
...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 category redirect2 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 // Fra nkB 06:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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. // Fra nkB 15:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)

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

Help with Sgt. Patrick Stewart
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)

Bad precedent
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Bernard Montgomery shenanigans
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)

Additional USAIOH insignia available
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.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 07:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Bel Air High School JROTC, El Paso, TX
 * 2) Texas Military Institute JROTC, San Antonio, TX
 * 3) Ben Lomond High School JROTC, Ogden, UT
 * 4) Bassett High School JROTC, Bassett, VA
 * 5) Benedictine High School JROTC, Richmond, VA
 * 6) Colonial Forge High School JROTC, Stafford, VA
 * 7) 75th Fires Brigade
 * 8) 104th Division (Institutional Training)
 * 9) Bethel Regional High School JROTC, Bethel AK
 * 10) Metter High School JROTC, Metter, GA
 * 11) Bonanza High School JROTC, Las Vegas, NV
 * 12) Barnwell High School JROTC, Barnwell, SC
 * 13) Washington-Marion Magnet High School JROTC, Lake Charles, LA
 * 14) New Brunswick High School JROTC, New Brunswick, NJ
 * 15) Los Lunas High School JROTC, Los Lunas, NM

Categorization question about field armies

 * 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?  &mdash; MrDolomite | Talk 22:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

24th Infantry Division to inactivate
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)


 * Times staff
 * The 24th Infantry Division, which has helped deploy numerous units since its most recent activation, will stand down Aug. 1.
 * In a ceremony at Fort Riley, Kan., the division will be inactivated.
 * The 24th dates to March 1, 1921, when it was created as the “Hawaiian Division” at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. The division earned the nickname “First to fight” for being among the first divisions to see combat in World War II.
 * The 24th Infantry Division was most recently activated at Fort Riley on June 5, 1999.
 * Since then, its soldiers have overseen the mobilization and deployments of 30th Heavy Separate Brigade at Clinton, N.C., 218th Heavy Separate Brigade of Columbia, S.C., and 48th Separate Infantry Brigade in Macon, Ga.; and simultaneously of the 278th Regimental Combat Team at Camp Shelby, Miss., and 42nd Infantry Division at Fort Drum, N.Y., which both deployed to Operation Iraqi Freedom.
 * Also during the “global war on terrorism,” the 24th has provided oversight to three active brigade-level units at Fort Riley —1st Brigade, 1st Infantry Division; 3rd Brigade, 1st Armored Division; and 937th Engineer Group.
 * In January, the division stood up 4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division. In March, the 24th Infantry Division began consolidating all military transition team training at Fort Riley while it also laid the groundwork for the return of the 1st Infantry Division to Fort Riley from Germany, which will occur later in August.
 * Division commanding general Maj. Gen. Dennis Hardy said, “Perhaps, in time, the Army will again call upon the 24th Infantry Division to be ‘First to Fight.’ ”
 * Coinciding with the 24th’s inactivation, after 10 years in Germany, the 1st Infantry Division is about to call Kansas home again. The Pentagon announced the return of the Big Red One last year, when it decided to move thousands of soldiers from Europe back in the continental United States. The return to Fort Riley is expected to double the size of post’s military population, bringing thousands of family members and additional civilian employees.
 * — The Associated Press contributed to this report.

United States Military Portal
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. Jo e  I  11:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * (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)

USACMH: Recently Updated Lineage and Honors Information
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
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 15:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 575th Support Company

Additional USAIOH insignia available
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 17:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 1) 222d Field Artillery Regiment
 * 2) Birmingham High Schools JROTC, Birmingham, AL
 * 3) Benjamin Franklin High School JROTC (Los Angeles Unified School District), Los Angeles, CA
 * 4) Mantanzas High School JROTC, Palm Coast, FL
 * 5) George Rogers Clark High School JROTC, Winchester, KY
 * 6) Pike County High Schools JROTC, Pikesville, KY
 * 7) Benton High School JROTC, St. Joseph, MO
 * 8) Wake Forest-Rolesville High School JROTC, Wake Forest, NC
 * 9) Bethel High School JROTC, Hampton, VA
 * 10) Alonzo A. Crim High School JROTC, Atlanta, GA (Change)
 * 11) Benedictine Military School JROTC, Savannah, GA
 * 12) Booker T. Washington High School JROTC, Atlanta, GA
 * 13) D. M. Therrell High School JROTC, Atlanta, GA (Change)
 * 14) Fulton County High Schools JROTC, Hapeville, GA
 * 15) G. W. Carver High School JROTC, Atlanta, GA
 * 16) Henry W. Grady High School JROTC, Atlanta, GA (Change)
 * 17) Lumpkin County High School JROTC, Dahlonega, GA
 * 18) North Atlanta High School JROTC, Atlanta, GA (Change)
 * 19) South Atlanta High School JROTC, Atlanta, GA (Change)
 * 20) Southside Comprehensive High School JROTC, Atlanta, GA (Change)

American Civil War
The American Civil War is fairly well covered on Wikipedia. However, some optimization as far as timelines, navigation between theaters, battlefields, leaders and many other facets, I believe are called for. Hence I am thinking of forming WikiProject American Civil War, which I believe once existed under a different name, but was deleted or something.

Since WikiProject Military history/United States military history task force has such a broad scope, a long name and a lot on its plate, I'm thinking it'll be simpler just to add a "child project" page for the purpose of building a comprehensive bio-geo-chrono-whatever Portal:American Civil War as a subportal of Portal:United States. We would certainly draw upon the resources of this taskforce.

The other "parent project" will be WikiProject United States.

Can we count on your support? Wanna shoot us down? Wanna join? Thoughts? &bull; CQ 18:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. If you're adamant about having a separate group, creating an American Civil War task force would be infinitely preferable to an entirely separate project; having dozens of independent child projects is something that's taken us great effort to move away from, and I, for one, would not like to see a return to that system.
 * More generally, I'm not sure that a separate group is necessary at this time, as this task force isn't that large or that high-traffic; you could do much of the work here (with a Portal:American Civil War, of course; c.f. how Portal:United States Marine Corps works). Are there enough people that a separate group is badly needed?  Or are there some other reasons you think that would be the best approach? Kirill Lokshin 19:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing, Krill. WikiProject Kentucky was working on the History of Kentucky (a border state) and uncovered a tremendously complex role for Kentucky in the Civil War. Subproject WikiProject Louisville has even come up with Louisville in the Civil War. We found that the American Civil War article itself was nice and linked out to many interesting articles, the most relevant to our projects was the Western Theater of the American Civil War. Our goal is to expand the content and contract the context within the scope of these tiny projects and tightly scoped articles. It seems to me that a uniform and comprehensive approach to the whole war should be covered using the Portal approach. I think there are plenty of Civil War buffs to warrent a separate project from a simpler less technical and more cultural platform (WikiProject American Civil War and Portal:American Civil War) without delving into the level of technical detail that you guys are handling. Plus WikiProject American Civil War is a little shorter than WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force. But either would be fine with me. &bull; CQ 19:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The level of detail is hardly an issue, I think; the main thing is that working as a task force would (among other things) allow a much closer level of interaction with this project's central processes, and avoid a balkanization of the project into little chunks that don't really interact. Certainly cultural history—which relates to military affairs, as everything connected to the ACW obviously does—is welcome within this project.  Hence, my strong recommendation that the new group be created as a task force.
 * (The issue of names seems pretty irrelevant; we can just redirect the "WikiProject" link to the task force—as well as creating some more usable shortcut, like WP:ACW.)
 * If we're all ok with a task force model, then, we can move onto the usual formalities: rounding up a few initial editors (~4–5 is the norm) who'd be willing to join. I assume you have some people in mind? Kirill Lokshin 19:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind that, actually; it's obvious that there are enough interested people. Please feel free to sign up for the new task force here. Kirill Lokshin 20:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:ACW and WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force it is then. I shall now point WikiProject American Civil War and change its entry at List of WikiProjects from "proposed" to "new". Stevietheman and I are the most active from the Kentucky WikiMilitia, and we'll try to get some other folks involved. With you that makes three. Quadell, Sunray, Maurreen, Sj stand out as people to notify about the project. I'm thinking also to post something on the Community bulletin board and the Regional notice boards. I think it may be a reasonable way to attract folks to WikiProject Military history. BTW I like the Taskforce approach. (See WP:CBTF) &bull; CQ 20:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've put up a note on the Community Portal already. All the back-end setup for the task force is done; hopefully we'll have an influx of new members shortly ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)