Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/U.S. 7th Infantry Division/archive1

U.S. 7th Infantry Division[edit]

U.S. 7th Infantry Division

4 articles

1st Brigade, 7th Infantry Division

2nd Brigade, 7th Infantry Divison

3rd Brigade, 7th Infantry Division

Nominating these articles for a Good Topic. Consists of four GA's, one for the Division itself and three for the subordinate divisional brigades serving under it. All are, of course, very closely related. -Ed!^(talk) 02:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Per 1(c): There doesn't seem to be either any common category that includes all four of the topic articles, nor does there appear to be a template that connects the four articles.
Per 1(d): Given the name of the topic and the fact that the lead of the main article notes that the division is "best known for its exploits during World War II", I would fully expect the topic to cover World War II units (most of which, however, seem to be redlinks). Also, there's no inclusion of World War I units, either.

— Bellhalla (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A template has been created linking the four articles. As for the units, the three subordinate brigades were parts of the Division during World War I under different names. Each of those articles explains the subordinate regiments of the 2nd and 3rd brigades, while the 1st brigade existed as a much smaller formation with no subordinate units. As for the World War II regiments, I did not see them as relavant to the 7th ID, as they are not assigned to the division permenantly as the three divisional brigades are. Several regiments were rotated in and out of the division during those conflicts and have no permenant connection to it, while the three divisional brigades were built to be permenantly a part of the division, and have all remained a part of it for much longer. -Ed!^(talk) 03:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly lay out here what other units have been part of the division, and which years these units were part? rst20xx (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. During World War I and the years after, the division consisted of two brigades:

13th Infantry Brigade 1917-1941 (became 2nd Brigade, 7th ID)

14th Infantry Brigade 1917-1941 (became 3rd Brigade, 7th ID)

During World War II the division was organized under 3 regiments, as part of an army-wide reorganization. For the next 20 years, three regiments would be attached to the division. This meant that any three regiments could fall under its command at any time. This meant that the regiments assigned to the division changed quite frequently, particularly in World War II. Here are the regiments that were assigned to the division at one time or another between 1941 and 1963:

17th Infantry Regiment (1941 - 1963)

32nd Infantry Regiment (1941 - 1963)

53rd Infantry Regiment (1941)

159th Infantry Regiment (1941 - 1943)

184th Infantry Regiment (1943 - ~1947)

31st Infantry Regiment (~1947 - 1963)

In 1963, 3 divisional brigades were created and assigned to the division. The 3 were created from the division's old headquarters element as well as the 13th and 14th Brigades. As far as the army is concerned, these are the same units as were active from 1917 - 1941, they were simply renamed.

1st Brigade, 7th Division 1963-1993 (from old Headquarters element)

2nd Brigade, 7th Division 1963-1993 (from 13th Infantry Brigade)

3rd Brigade, 7th Division 1963-1994 (from 14th Infantry Brigade)

The reason the regiments don't belong in this topic is that they are separate units from the division. They were only assigned to the brigade on a tactical basis (which was why two regiments happened to stay with the division for awhile while, for various reasons, the third regiment changed frequently.) They could be reassigned to other divisions as needed. However, in the case of the brigades, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Brigade, 7th Infantry Division are part of the division on a permenant basis; they can't be reassigned to another division. As the three brigades were part of the division for over 50 years (compared to the 20 years of a few of the regiments) and since they are actually a part of the division (as compared to the regiments, which act as completely independent units) this topic is, from an organization sense, both complete and correct. -Ed!^(talk) 23:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. I get that from an organisational sense, this topic is in some non-arbitrary sense complete, but I am wondering whether from a historical sense it is - 22 years is a long time to be associated with the battalion. And that span includes the whole of World War II and the Korean War. And the history is the most important thing - it's what the overwhelming bulk of each of the articles in the topic are about. As a result, I weak oppose, sorry - rst20xx (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards support I was going to quickly oppose the topic, but on a more careful look I realized that this is a truly valid topic. It is not featured, so I don't have huge expectations, and unless I am missing something I am supporting the topic. The only major thing I would like is to have a clear sentence in the intro of the main article saying that currently the division is composed of the brigade 1, 2, and 3. Nergaal (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this has been open for a month but has received very little feedback. More feedback would be appreciated - rst20xx (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request made at WikiProject Military history - rst20xx (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this topic were renamed "7th Infantry Division 1964–1994", would the issues surrounding the validity of the topic be resolved? As far as I can see, the 7th Infantry Division has had three phases of existence, and this topic is complete in so far as the third phase is concerned. An argument could be made that the first phase is equivalent to the third phase, but it is clear that the 2nd phase is very different. Technically speaking, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd brigades only existed for thirty years (even if they can trace their lineage back further); as rst20xx points out, some of the regiments formerly attached to the division had nearly as long an association with the division as these brigades. I realise it isn't the most elegant of compromises, but it would remove some of the debate. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to compromise on that. -Ed!^(talk) 20:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case, I would definitely support the nomination. Right now, I do not oppose the nomination, but am somewhat uncertain. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like this idea less than what we had before. It's cherrypicking by scope reduction, as particularly evidenced by how it came about - rst20xx (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close with no consensus to promote - with 1 support (for an alternative formulation), 1 weak support, 1 weak oppose and 1 querier I do not feel this topic has sufficient consensus to promote. Further the nomination has been open for quite a while and it appears no-one else has feedback. Sorry it took so long - rst20xx (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]