Talk:Naval Support Facility Anacostia

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 not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force

Merge

Due to the long-term history of this as a stand alone base, I do not recommend merging this one with other articles. It is still called Naval Base Anacostia by many. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Naval Support Facility Anacostia ceased to exist when Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling was formed. I'd support having a separate article if there was enough text here about the history of the base up to 2010 to justify having a subarticle, but as it is the text is short enough to be part of the history section for the Joint Base article. If the article were expanded, I'd support keeping this as a separate article. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Banana River Naval Station became part of Patrick Air Force Base. (Didn't notice a redirect though). Just one precedent off the top of my head. Like to see all parties happy with the decision whichever way we go. There are probably ample precedents (maybe both ways) with BRAC. Student7 (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, there should be separate articles for NAS Banana River, but the existence of that base was only about 10 years mostly during WWII. However, NAS Anacostia has almost 100 year history. The history of this facility needs expansion, which I believe will not happen if part of JBAB, nor will it get it's due significance. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To take a local example, Fort Myer was combined with Henderson Hall (Arlington, Virginia). Articles still exist on both AND Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall! Student7 (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the way joint bases are handled is extremely confusing: it's okay to have articles on the predecessor bases, but it should be clear that they are no longer active, having been merged into a new base. I think it would work best if information about the current operations were at the joint base article, and only historical information should be at the predecessor base articles. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with making sure it is clear that it was combined in terms of base operations with Bolling to make JBAB. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]