This template is within the scope ofWikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to theUnited States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This template is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
Fifty links, all redirects back to the only page where this template is used. I would hope somebody is planning on making some of these articles soon.Danthemankhan06:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm requesting amerge because I believe that these templates would work better as a single template. They share a similar structure and topic, and many of the links are matched between the three individual navboxes (meaning that all three link to the same article for a given state). it saves space and aids navigation to have them consolidated. I've also posted my suggestionhere.bahamut0013♠♣00:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because the army and air National Guard are two different things. We've split many National Guard pages based on this. I can see why you want to merge the templates but if we give it time, people will split the pages into their respective locations. We probably should put a bulletin out there notifying people of this because otherwise this discussion might lead to something not being done.Kevin Rutherford (talk)17:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, the army national guard template is more like the national guard one, since when you say "National Guard", you usually mean the army portion. They could be merged but it probably won't solve any problems and someone is bound to disagree with it.Kevin Rutherford (talk)17:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I would definately support having two navboxes instead of three. If, as you say, the NG articles are being split into ArmyNG and AFNG, then it would eventually happen anyway. Looking atTemplate:US ANG by state, I don't see too many states without an AFNG article, and most of the links inTemplate:US ARNG by state show that they also have thier own articles as well. That alone tells me that the Army and the Air Force navboxes can stand on thier own without a third generic NG navbox (Template:NGbystate) that mostly just links to articles that act as disabmiguation pages (likeAlabama National Guard).
