Template talk:Canadian Forces Bases

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Canada (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Military history
MILHIST This template 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.
Temp Templates do not require a rating on the quality assessment scale.

Scope[edit]

Should this be renamed to "Canadian Forces facilities" to reflect its scope? That way we can justify adding the CFS, CFD, and CFAD facilities. We don't have to rename the template (too much work), but probably the title at the top.Ng.j (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

sounds like a good idea to me..Moxy (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, if we call it "Canadian Forces facilities" we will probably see every Primary Reserve armoury included as well, which we definitely do not want (there are hundreds). Perhaps we can keep it as is, but specify the scope here in discussion.
I think that all of the CFB, CFS, CFD, CFAD, and major training installations like LFCATC Meaford should be included. Looking for more input... Ng.j (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Including any and all facilities in the template would be ridiculous. A good idea would be to create a single page for all the Primary Reserve armouries and put that page on the template. CFB, CFS, CFD, CFAD, TCs, etc. should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.94.34.166 (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

CFB Winnipeg[edit]

Why is CFB Winnipeg listed under both defunct and current? The article suggests that its still open and being actively used. Gsingh (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)