Rbarrett3776

Welcome!

Hello, Rbarrett3776, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Karmafist 22:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

re: 517th

i see your point about 517th pir vs. the prct, however i disagree slightly. technically, the pir is not the prct, however, the infantry regiment is the main unit in the prct, the artillery bn and engineer co are attached to it, making them subordinate units. just like the brigades in the 82nd airborne div. they each have their subordinate artillery, engineer, aviation, etc. unit attached to them, which are considered to be part of the brigades, although are technically different units. i will, however, concede that you're right about some of the entries in the "notable soldiers" section don't really apply.

i, myself, would be in favor of merging the two articles, basically taking the prct article and incorporating all of the extra information into it. the pir and prct are essentially the same thing, albeit with/without the support units attached. i did see the prct's "short history" page. i would say that you could just filter out some of the "too specific" information from those pages and just get the gist of it for the wikipedia articles. you wouldn't necessarily have to say that 1st squad of company a, 2nd battalion did such and such on this date, while 2nd squad did such and such, unless the actions of said squads are especially notable. just the general gist of the information is important.

the reason for my interest/knowledge in/of the 517th is my fiance's grandfather, who served in the unit in world war two, taking part in the jump into southern france and then the fighting in the bulge, etc. he's told me some of his stories, and i can relate to them in a way, being a paratrooper myself who's served in a war (not to say my experience in iraq is in any way even approaching his experiences in WWII).

i'd be glad to continue discussing this with you. since you asked me, i too am curious about your connection to the 517th.

nate ott, Parsecboy 02:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The new unit naming conventions

Hi Rbarrett, and thanks for the message. You brought something to my attention with the 517th and it sounded reasonable; however, I checked with the project lead coordinator to make sure we were all on the same page, and he agrees with you that the name is sufficiently unique, and given the unlikelihood of anyone else in the world having that same name, that the disambiguator is unnecessary. I've changed it back. My apologies.

The new guidelines for naming units, particularly numbered units (hence the change), come from here. The reason it was decided that the country should be put at the end rather than at the beginning ("14th Infantry Reg. (United States)" vs. "U.S. 14th Infantry Reg" for example) is because the "U.S." is not a part of the regiment's official name and accuracy is most desirable in these cases--putting it in as part of the name changes that. Some heated discussions had taken place prior to the new unit naming guidelines, sparked by the battle between one camp that wanted to name a unit "U.S. Third Infantry Regiment" and the other camp (I included) that insisted on its proper name, "Third United States Infantry Regiment." The first camp argued that other units on Wikipedia had put the U.S. at the front, so the same should apply in this case for consistency. The second camp argued that putting the U.S. in front changed the official name of the unit and consistency should never come at the cost of accuracy. The final resolution from the Military History WikiProject (by the way, are you a member? If not, why not? We could use you) was to name the unit its official name and add the country in () afterwards to differentiate between units of similar names from differing countries.

Since the final decision, it was asked of project members to begin going through the units worldwide and moving them to the new names; if other units still have the U.S. at the front, it's because we haven't gotten to all of them yet. Some of the units (like U.S. First Army) I changed to their official names (First United States Army), which solved the problem immediately. Others, I've moved per the new guidelines to the disambigged version. As the lead pointed out though, there are exceptions where the disambig is unnecessary given the uniqueness of the name. My apologies, given my lack of knowledge of the 517th to know that no one else on earth would have anything similar to it in name, and I appreciate the correction. If anyone else tries to change it, be sure and tell them Kirill said to keep it as is. Thanks again. And like I said, if you're not a member of the Project, we can always use a few more bodies with military knowledge, even in small doses--your contributions would be most helpful, especially in areas such as this. --ScreaminEagle 20:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

596th PCEC

Hi Rbarrett3776. Following some discussion on the WT:MILHIST talk page - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_89#39th_Military_Police_Company, it was decided that separate companies not capable of independent action did not necessarily meet WP:Notability. There was then an WP:Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance Company (United States) done and that company was deleted. I then consulted with another editor User_talk:Nick-D#Separate companies and he advised that companies which didn't have significant notability be Prod'ed or Speedy'd, and the remainder sent to AfD. Seeing that the material on the company simply replicated far less information than was at the 517th Parachute Regimental Combat Team page, I deleted the page. Then I deleted the backlinks which you saw. If you've got additional material on the sub-unit, including third party references - ideally books - which mention its actions and you want to add that to the entry, I can bring the data back and put it in your userspace for you to work on. But as it stood the page only gave a few details when the 517th PRCT page gave much more. Hope that explains things - happy to clarify further. Buckshot06(prof) 03:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)