This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This template was nominated for
deletion on 2008 July 20. The result of
the discussion was No decision.
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)reply
I agree. It looks like some of them existed at one time and were all redirected back.
Chris 20:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
[copy/pasted discussion from TfD end -
Nabla (
talk) 22:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)]reply
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)reply