Talk:Marine Detachment

Military history: Maritime / North America / United States C‑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

C

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

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

United States: Military history 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
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.

Possible sources

Two freely available sources for this article can be found in the US Navy's magazine "All Hands":

- https://media.defense.gov/2019/Apr/27/2002122191/-1/-1/1/ah195711.pdf (November 1957, "They Go To Sea - But They're Marines")

- https://media.defense.gov/2019/Apr/10/2002112553/-1/-1/1/AH197811.pdf (November 1978, "Marines At Sea")

English is not my first language, so I'll leave editing to more fluent users.

Horse Marines

The subject of this article is simply and clearly defined in its first sentence: "A Marine Detachment, or MarDet, was a unit of 35 to 85 United States Marines aboard large warships..." There are, of course, many other kinds of Marine detachments, too many to list in one article.

One kind of detachment is interesting enough to have its own article, namely Horse Marines. But it's totally out of place in an article about shipboard Marines. The section about Horse Marines should be moved into its own article, which would be a nice magnet for Wikipedia editors who want to write about an interesting bit of military history.

@FieldMarine, who created the Horse Marine section, disagrees. I'll let him speak for himself. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it would be appropriate to convert the present redirect to a separate article about the Horse Marines if sufficient sources can be found, and sufficient links from other articles provided to prevent designation as an orphan. We might include a link at the beginning of this article something like:

It might be interesting to describe this present day group: https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/1293720/last-marine-unit-on-horseback-celebrates-50th-anniversary/

and possibly mention the group of Texans who identified themselves with the name: https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/horse-marines

Thewellman (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I meant when I said that a Horse Marines article would be a magnet.

Those Texan "horse marines" certainly deserve a place on Wikipedia, but they weren't part of the Marine Corps, so it's a separate place. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Marines of the Marine Corps is a noteworthy subject and should be covered in Wikipedia, and thus I oppose the removal of it. I support a separate article if it satisfies GNG. The subject should be covered here until it is expanded to a point where it can be a standalone article. I believe this current article could be structured so it flows better. Also, the Google search of "many other kinds of Marine detachments" appears to primarily produce specific named detachments, and not a kind of detachment like "Horse Marines". Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 06:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't add material out of the scope of an article just because the new material deserves to be on Wikipedia . You create a new article. If you don't have enough material for a proper article, you add the stub template to the new article. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Guys, how about, as a compromise and interim mesasure, the Horse Marines section gets moved to the main USMC page, perhaps in the History section, until it get its own article? - wolf 15:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is creating a new article such a big deal? I'd do it, but I think it should be done by somebody more knowledgeable about USMC history. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've transferred the text of interest to the former redirect, and added it to the Marine Corps navigation box to avoid orphan status, but it would be desirable to find a more suitable photo of Marines horsing around. Thewellman (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, afaic, that does the trick, as it's basically a stub for a new article. (Though typically such move isn't done during an active discussion, but after a consensus following input from all involved. But unless FM has an issue, this should be considered resolved for now.) Cheers - wolf 09:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues from my view. 1) The new article does not meet GNG and could be deleted. 2) It comingles Marine Corps Horse Marines with another kind, which I personally think causes more confusion than the way it was. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG says that the topic is notable if "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I'm not seeing that kind of problem here. And I think having an article about Marines on horses is a lot less confusing than having a section about Marines on horseback in an article about Marines on ships. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Other than articles on the chain of command at the national level, I only see Marine specific ones in the USMC Navbox. This is an example of comingling. 2. Per WP:THREE, the rule of thumb is 3 reliable sources with significant coverage to pass GNG. @Isaac Rabinovitch, please list the three sources used in the article you think meet this criteria? Keep in mind military sources covering military subjects are generally challenged as non-reliable for purposes of GNG and significant coverage is a source that focuses on the subject and not a trivial mention in the source. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]