Talk:Fort Wainwright

Alaska High‑importance

	Alaska portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Military history: North America / United States

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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

United States: Superfund Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Superfund (assessed as Mid-importance).

Infobox

I'm going to attempt to add an infobox to this article. Derek Balsam^(talk) 01:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this is were I would say this, but I feel if the page should have the current command for Fort Wainwright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakeclark7183 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, "current" rather quickly becomes "outdated", making these articles a curious snapshot in time more often than not, especially when there aren't warm bodies up for the task. The need to constantly keep such information up-to-date tends to invite COI editing, when someone in that current command notices that their name isn't mentioned and instructs an underling to "fix" it for them. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Ladd Army Airfield

Copying my rationale from Talk:Ladd Army Airfield:

Seems like merging with Fort Wainwright would improve the quality of both articles, and provide a better historical perspective of the post(s). Derek Balsam(talk) 01:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that this merge was already proposed once, recently. There wasn't any discussion about it as far as I can tell. User:Nobunaga24 removed the merge tag with the comment "removing merge tag - Many AAFs have articles seperate from the main fort's article". However, just because "many" Army Air Fields have separate articles doesn't mean that is the right thing to do for this article. See for example Mackall Army Airfield and the entire List of United States Army airfields. Both Ladd Army Airfield and Fort Wainwright are very short articles, and could be improved by the merger. In addition, the term "Ladd Field" not only refers to the Ladd Army Airfield but also to the historical Ladd Air Force Base. A merged article would then give complete historical context of the installation. I'm willing to do the work.Derek Balsam(talk) 02:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Therefore I believe this qualifies for merger under WP:MM#Overlap, WP:MM#Text, and WP:MM#Context.Derek Balsam^(talk) 02:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While there should certainly be a section in Fort Wainwright about Ladd AAF, there are several reasons to maintain seperate pages. The original merge tag was placed on the article on 7 November 2006, and no further action or discussion was ever initiated. Unfortunately, the edit summary doesn't give you enough space to elaborate, so I'll do that now briefly. For starters, the airfield has a history independent of Wainwright, having been an air force base for a number of years, as have many army airfields. Just because now it falls under Fort Wainwright doesn't mean that it should necessarily be merged into that article. Airfields also have a unique function seperate from the usual activities on most forts. They serve as a transportation hub, and sometimes, such as at Fort Leonard Wood, serve as an airport for the surrounding community. Given its history as an Air Force base, the potential for the article to be expanded is there, though it is just a short article now. On the wikipedia side, airfields, being airports, are of interest to the aviation project on wikipedia, whereas army forts aren't. There are seperate infoboxes used for airports, there are airport diagrams, aviation incidents, etc. I think perhaps before any action is taken, input from both WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation should be sought, since they both have an interest in this, and perhaps the Alaska project too. For some AAFs, merging into the main fort's article might make sense, but in my opinion I don't think Ladd, given its size and history, is one of those. --Nobunaga24 02:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at this years later: Ladd's article is far better fleshed out, in spite of its comparatively limited history, due mostly to pillaging the same tired old PD sources found in countless other articles. The lack of willingness to pursue more organic sourcing has left this article wide open to Superfund enthusiasts, who I suppose figure that they have free reign to dump their POV and that eventually some other interest group will come along to dump their POV and that somehow "everything will balance out". "The original merge tag was placed on the article on 7 November 2006, and no further action or discussion was ever initiated". In other words, if someone else doesn't go to all the trouble right off the bat, no one else should be bothered (better known as The Story of Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody). It's a common time-wasting gambit, which simply enables/justifies rampant content forking instead of curtailing it. WP Aviation and WP MilHist have long been busy building islands instead of bridges between the two topic areas, even when they're closely related. Throw in the excess of Superfund POV, and there shouldn't be any question why I've tagged this article as having problems. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]