Talk:Fort George G. Meade

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.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-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

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fort George G. Meade article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

http://www.ftmeade.army.mil

[edit] Merging pages?

I agree with having the two Fort Meade pages merged. If written well with clear sections there should be no confusion. Adavidb 15:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Makes sense, they are one in the same. Navyteacher86 12:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it is such a good idea. One is for the census, and the other is the base itself. Others have themselve seperated: see Fort Belvoir, Virginia and Fort Belvoir. I think it would be better to leave them seperate. Radagast83 17:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hundreds of census-designated places were made into new Geography/Demographics pages in October 2002 by Ram-Man as a way of populating Wikipedia. I don't believe this history in itself justifies leaving these pages separate from others regarding the same locations.Adavidb 08:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe we should merge these pages...CDP's are completely seperate entities in discussion from military instalations and should be treated as such. Wrightchr 19:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Do those who advocate separation of the information have reason to believe the geography/demographics data from the CDP does not correspond with that of the military base? (Why is it considered so separate?) Adavidb 03:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think keeping them separate would be a good idea. A military base is not the same thing as a CDP. — Matt Crypto 14:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The CDP in question covers the same military base. Why not combine the information? It's only about geography and demographics. Adavidb 15:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)