Talk:Fort Bliss

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
MILHIST 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Peer review Fort Bliss has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Copied from Fort Bliss talk page

[edit] Contributions

Sorry I couldn't contribute more, but i live in El Paso, so I will See what I can do about getting information on Fort Bliss. -Noname, 8-4-04

[edit] Metric units

I notice that the addition of metric units was reverted. Note that the Wikipedia Manual of Style says :

  • "If using American or Imperial units, give the metric equivalent as a courtesy."

I have put the metric units back. If anyone (e.g. Gary D if you are reading this), thinks that metric units should not be provided for other readers, then it might be an idea to discuss it at the Manual of Style. Trying to help. Bobblewik  (talk) 23:33, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Armored unit move

I'm not sure where to include this in the article, but it was annouced a few weeks ago that the army would be transferring an armored unit to Fort Bliss sometime in the next year or two. It will bring an addition 6,000 troops to the base, which will have a drastic effect on El Paso's economy. TomStar81

[edit] Base Realignment and Closure

According to KVIA ABC-7 News (El Paso, TX), Fort Bliss is slated to gain just over 11,000 troops if the proposed Base Realignment and Closure model is approved by President George W. Bush. Fort Bliss would lose its Air Defense Artillery units (mostly Patriot Missile equipment) and the Air Defense Artillery School, which would be moved to Fort Sill, Oklahoma. TomStar81 05:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

  • AND IT JUST KEEPS GETTING BETTER!!!!!!!! The army has upped the number of people it will send to Fort Bliss under a new a plan, which would bring the total number of troops coming into Fort Bliss from 11,500 to 20,000!! AWESOME!!!!! TomStar81 04:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • yea, but as a soldier stations at Fort Bliss, I have to add that we will be getting a new brigade that will do test & eval. If your MOS is 14 series, you can now escape Texas. 11B's will now know the pleasure-yea that's it of El Paso..... On a serious note.. where is the Article on WBAMC? On Tobin Wells? 11th brigade is staying, 1-1 is in Japan, 31st is moving to Fort Sill. Anybody read the Monitor? 72.178.14.93 07:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Occasionally, when I scoot over to WBAMC, I will see if I can find the Moniter to scope out base news. What I am interested in mostly is the upgunned base security measures, which seem to increase everytime I look around. I was also checking for info on the bomb scare a few weeks back, that shook me up. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was MOVED AS REQUESTED PER CONSENSUS -GTBacchus(talk) 16:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Fort Bliss, Texas → Fort Bliss – Unto my experience that United States Army has nevered used "Fort, X, Y" as a way of naming a base, its has always just been "Fort X". To that end I would like the article transfered back to its original page, both to reflect on the correct name of the base and to help bring the article in line the other US Fort articles here on Wikipedia

[edit] Survey

  • Nominate and Support TomStar81 03:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--Nobunaga24 05:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support name is unambiguous. The "Texas" is unnecessary. --Polaron | Talk 05:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support After all there is no Fort Bliss, Arizona or Fort Bliss, Florida or any other Fort Bliss. So Texas is unnecessary. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 08:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support It's a military base. The demographics can be put in a section called "Fort Bliss, Texas", or spun off to a separate page. —wwoods 20:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

While this is a military installation, it is also a census-designated place so it falls under the city naming guidelines. You are probably going to get a lot of opposition saying that using "Fort Bliss" alone, while unambiguous is against the guideline. Good luck in your efforts though. --Polaron | Talk 05:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I brought this up in the Military Hostory wikiproject because it is outside what would be considered the correct name. In lew of this I may ask that we (by which I mean the military history wikiproject) adopt our own naming conventions for these instalations. TomStar81 07:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The solution is to have a separate article for the census-designated place, which should be called Fort Bliss, Texas (and make clear whether the CDP includes anything outside the fort). This will be a stub, and probably will always be a stub. Septentrionalis 18:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
A seperate article is probably not needed; a section would be fine. Even though they are census designated places, military bases are a little bit different in that 1) 100% of the population is temporary - between two different census, it's almost guaranteed the population has turned over completely. 2) The population of the CDP grows/shrinks only according to how much Congress/DoD permits (i.e. base expansion/base closure, moving units) 3) "residents" of military posts retain their residency in their home state - you may be stationed at Fort Bliss, but if you are from New York, you pay New York tax, have a New York driver's license, New York license plates, etc etc. I think maintaining two seperate articles would be overly complicated, and might lead to linking to the wrong one. I doubt too many people who are going to search for a military post will be looking for the CDP specifically.--Nobunaga24 22:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Section names

WP:MOS indicates that re-use of article names in names of individual sections is to be avoided. Several sections commence with Fort Bliss or Base which is redundant (eg, Base Closure... could simply be Closure )Garrie 03:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Base Closure and Realignemnt is a proper noun, refer to a specific process; therefore I do not think it apropriete to reduce the name (although abreviating it as BRAC would be exceptable). TomStar81 (Talk) 10:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

Consider moving some paragraphs from the introductory section to a new section - /*Location*/ or /*Geography*/ perhaps (the second would allow discussion of the geography of the base which significantly impacts on any millitary planning of activities conducted at that location)Garrie 03:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)