Talk:Fort Eustis

Military history: Fortifications / 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 met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion not met

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

Virginia C‑class Mid‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

January 2006[edit]

I was stationed at Ft. Eustis from 1975 to 1978 and then was sent to Ft. Davis in the Canal Zone. At this time, Ft. Eustis was a very well usedand populated military base. I did drive down to the base a few years ago and it did surprise me that there was no Military Police or Gate at the entrence! I was able to drive around the base and it sure did look dead to me! I even drove down to the Dock, which at my time of service was very filled up with the boats, this was dead to me also!

what did happen to all there Comapanys amd all the troops that were once there? This Base was an important part of my life and to see it the way I did, did make me feel like I lost a part of me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.36.23.27 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been stationed at Fort Eustis several times over my 25+Years career in the Army, and I can tell you exactly what has happened. The Transportation Corps has been fully deployed around the world in support of the various field operations that are taking place. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 03:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USAALS is NOT moving to Ft. Rucker[edit]

As an AIT student at Ft. Eustis, I've been told by my brigade CSM that it's not moving to Ft. Rucker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.65.36.80 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tenant Activities[edit]

What about tenant activities located at Fort Eustis? Is this a topic that should be covered here?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 18:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008[edit]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal[edit]

I came across this article as part of the WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 project. One of the very first lines in this article: "existing entirely within the post boundaries of the United States Army Transportation Center and Fort Eustis (USATCFE), Fort Eustis, Virginia." I believe supports that this article should actually be a sub-section in the Fort Eustis article. --dashiellx (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if the article (to be merged) is small and limited, I support the merger.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 19:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article to be merged is not small and limited. It is actually longer than this article, and will distort this articles coverage. They are legitimately different articles. One thing being within another geographically is not relevant. -- Chris j wood (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel the length of the article should be taken into account. IMHO, the point is not to create and maintain multiple pages just for the sake of having multiple pages. IMHO, the point is to have one place where a user can find all the information related to a subject. The article to be merged describes an integral aspect of the fort which makes it unique and the articles should be merged. --dashiellx (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This article clearly refers to the railroad and its operations, and is worth a separate article for those interested in railroads and the U.S. Army Transportation Museum. It should remain linked to Fort Eustis as a stand-alone article. Jllm06 (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those Opposed have my out voted. I have removed the Merge Tags from both articles. --dashiellx (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fort Eustis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]