Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/3rd US Infantry/Archive

Before mediation

I will agree to participate on one condition: Hotfeba is also to be summoned for inclusion in this mediation, as he has had as much part in this as any of the other aforementioned parties, and yet was not listed. Thank you. Ryecatcher773 06:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I was initially going to reject it when I first saw it because he wasn't included. I'm glad he was. And as I said, I hope these are quick because I won't be here after two weeks or so. --ScreaminEagle 12:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) I believe that the main reason I was not originally named was that the sources I had compiled were persuasive on their own to determine the full official name of the 3rd United States Infantry Regiment without either an optional disambiguating phrase as not required by MILHIST style or the HQDA-approved special designator Old Guard. Further examination of the MILHIST style guide provides additional guidance on the matter in support of the above name, which adds strength to a pending agreement on the full official name as described above to dispose of the first point. (2) I oppose any compromise on the second point that is in apparent violation of the use of verifiable sources in any renaming scheme of military unit articles by something other than their official names, and an insistence on such a scheme may force this into arbitration on that point alone. (3 & 4) Given my position on these first two points, one eagerly awaits the timely proposed solutions by the summoning party on points three and four, given the time constraints cited by myself as a victim in an on-going federal environmental crimes matter and at least one other of the summoned parties. Hotfeba 16:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The following is taken directly from my talk page. This was the response from the Admin for WP for Military History, who happens to be named in this mediation case, the last time this argument came up about a year ago. I've cut and pasted this for the purpose of establishing some precedent in regards to any decision made on the current installment of the argument:

Actually, it means that I'm the project's most glorified paper-pusher; but we'll just ignore that point. ;-)

I have no problems with moving it to the official name of the unit; you may want to insert a footnote into the article after the name to indicate that it is, in fact, the correct order, so that future editors don't feel compelled to fix it. Personally, I think we should expand out the abbreviation (3rd United States Infantry Regiment), but I'll leave that up to your discretion. In the long term, I think we're going to have to try and come up with some actually usable guideline for how to name these articles, reconciling the use of official names with a sensible placement of "United States" when it's inserted for disambiguation purposes; but that's a rather broader issue. Kirill Lokshin 02:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(boldfacing by me)

Ryecatcher773 00:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)