Talk:Field Artillery Branch (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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: 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: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

[edit] Merge

This is a good article on the US Army Field Artillery. I think that it should be included as a heading under Artillery. As Wikipedia is not a dictionary, dividing up the information only makes it harder to find.--Counsel 17:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This article focuses on the branch of the U.S. Army known as Field Artillery. It's more about how the U.S. Army is divided up than about artillery itself. I think it's appropriate to leave it separate; if it were to be merged, it should be merged into something about officer branches, not about artillery and artillerists. JJL 20:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"Field Artillery" is certainly more than and "officer branch". This article is about artillery as employed by the United States, however, the US does not employ artillery any differently than any other country. Artillery concepts are universal. My two cents having spent more than a few years as an artilleryman.--Counsel 04:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As both a retired "Red Leg" and the son of a professional librarian, I have strong feelings about maintaining the distinction, (between the "Field" artillery of the U.S. Army and the more general topic of "artillery") and correctly cataloging/indexing the entry. Seem to me that it would be "Artillery, Field", as a sub-listing, but I'm not sure what the impact searches using the natural language terms would be. The intent should always be to return the most applicable/appropriate results from the user's persepctive. The current listing accomplished that for my search. [SJ Pratt] 17:30, 22 Feb 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think that there is certainly room for a detailed article on the US Army's artillery, or perhaps artillery in the United States in general (including the USMC). I think that the distinction between Field Artillery and field artillery (with caps and without) is too subtle a distinction. How about moving the article on the US artillery to something like "United States Field Artillery". In doing so, I think a heading on the main Artillery page with a short entry about US artillery with a link to the longer article would serve.--Counsel 17:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move

Propose moving this article to United States Army Field Artillery Corps. As noted above, the name does not properly reflect the content. Please support or oppose and comment. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• That is a more accurate (and less U.S.-centric), albeit wordy, title. I support this change. What would become of this page? Redirect, disambig.? JJL 19:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

When you move a page, the old page automatically becomes a redirect. The editor who makes the move should also check "what links here" to clean up any double-redirects (there aren't any current redirects, therefor there will be no double-redirects), and can also take on the task of cleaning up the single-redirects that are created by the move.--Gadget850 ( Ed)

There has been an intiative of late to do away with acronyms, intitialisms and abbreviations in titles. Thus, a lot of articles with "US" in the title have been expanded to "United States". --Gadget850 ( Ed)

• Move to US Field Artillery Corps, fix articles linking here, redirect Field Artillery to the page on the concept Field artillery. This seems much more sensible than having Field Artillery redirect solely to the US organisation; there's bound to be other armies using the term as a title. Shimgray | talk | 22:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I take that as a support. I like your thought on the redirect. --Gadget850 ( Ed)

As there doesn't seem to be anyone disagreeing, and it's been a few weeks, I'll move (and fix the redirect) Shimgray | talk | 11:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)