Talk:Fort Meade

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fort Meade article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

United States: Military history / Superfund / Government Start‑class 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Superfund (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: North America / United States Start‑class

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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

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

Correction and Detention Facilities Start‑class (defunct)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Untitled

http://www.ftmeade.army.mil

Merging pages?

I agree with having the two Fort Meade pages merged. If written well with clear sections there should be no confusion. Adavidb 15:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Makes sense, they are one in the same. Navyteacher86 12:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it is such a good idea. One is for the census, and the other is the base itself. Others have themselve seperated: see Fort Belvoir, Virginia and Fort Belvoir. I think it would be better to leave them seperate. Radagast83 17:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of census-designated places were made into new Geography/Demographics pages in October 2002 by Ram-Man as a way of populating Wikipedia. I don't believe this history in itself justifies leaving these pages separate from others regarding the same locations.Adavidb 08:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe we should merge these pages...CDP's are completely seperate entities in discussion from military instalations and should be treated as such. Wrightchr 19:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do those who advocate separation of the information have reason to believe the geography/demographics data from the CDP does not correspond with that of the military base? (Why is it considered so separate?) Adavidb 03:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think keeping them separate would be a good idea. A military base is not the same thing as a CDP. — Matt Crypto 14:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The CDP in question covers the same military base. Why not combine the information? It's only about geography and demographics. Adavidb 15:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These should definitely be merged IMO. Since both articles cover different aspects of the same thing, they can seamlessly be combined. Others that have been combined include Fort Rucker, Fort Greely, Fort Bragg, and Fort Knox. --GregU 19:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with merging the two pages. The postal adress for the town of Fort Meade includes non-military addresses off the base that have nothing to do with military other than perhaps a large military clientele, schools for example.

County?

What county of Virginia? 76.218.100.214 (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Meade is not in Virginia.