Talk:504th Infantry Regiment (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article 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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

[edit] Battalions

I don't think adding the lineage information on the battalions is useful. It merely expands the article by repeating minutely different information on each battalion. Similarly, the postwar information is not particularly useful in that format. If we replace that with what the actual tasks of the regiment were (in paragraph form) it would be useful. Otherwise, I think we merely duplicate what CMH posts on the regiment, which begs the question of why put it in Wikipedia? --Habap 14:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I did the paragraphs you talk about as seperate files to cover each period, and have produced a consolidated file for the World War Two period. Look at the two ways of doing this, and let me know what you think. I will do the Post World War Two period in the morning.

I aggree on the Battalion information, except that if you closely at the Battalions, they don't each have identical lineages. Two of the three battalions have different lineages, and the Regiment is different from the Battalions as well. Those differences can be consolidated if you insist.

As to why put it all in wikipedia, not everyone is aware of the CMH, or its resources, first of all, and it is posted specifically for historians to make use of in outside documents. That is specifically why all of the US Government's documents are in the Public Domain under the law.

CORNELIUSSEON 05:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I think we do need to link to CMH and leave some of the information to them. The lineage is a fine example. It is unlikely that someone reading a general encyclopedia entry would be interested in which company in the initial regiment was the basis for which battalion. I need to read over the write-up. Excellent work thus far. Hopefully, we'll be able to do similar work on the rest of regimentals for the 82nd and 101st.... --Habap 15:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Speaking of the battalions, has anyone found anything on the 504th Parachute Infantry Battalion? This was the original unit that was used as the Cadre for the 504th PIR. In other words, the 504th PIB was one of the test units that produced the whole Airborne concept. I'm sorry that CMH did not include it in the 504 PIR lineage.

CORNELIUSSEON 20:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

---

The lineage for the 504th PI Battalion is part of the 503d PIR. When the 503d was activated in 1942, the 504th Battalion was redesignated as its 2d Battalion. Cyane 23:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

SSgt Seon, you will find that Cyane is correct - the 504th PIB became a part of the 503d. However, after Torch, it became the 509th PIB, which is the lineage ancestor of the 509th Infantry. Thus, the 504th PIB had nothing to do with the 504th PIR. It is quite possibly the most squirrelly lineage in Airborne. --Habap 05:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

The WWII article is pretty substantial, I think it's fine to keep it granular. Since nobody has done this merger or discussed it since February, it seems tehre isn't much interest either, though I will move the article to 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment (World War II) to keep it consistent with thius article. Avraham 20:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)