Talk:United States Army Chemical School

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] Requested move

Self explanatory, the article describes a military facility, and "chemical school" is simply not specific enough. Zadanian

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

I agree with the move, but I would prefer United States Army Chemical School, since that seems official. But if that's not agreed to, I would support the move as suggested. Also, I would only support a move if somebody is willing to check/fix all the backlinks, which seems to be a lot (although maybe they're all just from the template, I can't tell). --rob 02:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with rob... I initially proposed Chemical School (U.S. Army) only because it was in line with what other wikipedia articles on TRADOC schools had used; however, I think that United States Army Chemical School is much better. Another concern is how many links go to this page, I am also unaware whether it is a template or not. Also, on another note, the template used on this page (ie. name, location, motto, picture, commandant) is a good example of what other TRADOC pages should use. Zadanian 00:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- I did a quick rough count and about 23/24 back links exist, which is about equal to the number of blue-links in the included template. So, it does appear if the article is moved, and the template edited, that almost all backlinks will be gone soon. However, I haven't verified this (by visiting every other article), and I think the only way of knowing is to go ahead and do it. I'm not doing it myself right now, becaues I've experienced a number of time-outs/not-responding errors with wikipedia, and I don't want to start something I can't finish. But, it seems ok to go ahead when somebody with the time/willingnesses wishes to. --rob 00:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Result: page moved to United States Army Chemical School. -- Eugene van der Pijll 18:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

minor note: Many articles continue to show up as back-links for the re-direct, however that's only because they haven't been resaved. It seems "What links here?" doesn't handle links from a template properly, until after the article containing the template is re-saved. So, despite appearances, it seems all uses of the re-direct (made by the move) were fixed when the template was fixed. --rob 10:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)