The result was Keep. As always, merge/rename discussions may occur at the appropriate talk page. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC) reply
According to the Military history Wikiproject Manual of Style: Mugs2109 ( talk) 15:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC) reply
An article about a unit, formation, or base should be placed at "Name (optional disambiguator)". The name should generally be either the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit or base belongs
the Move request on the talk page clarification needed makes it clear that the bases are to be called "fort X", not "Fort X, location". Moreover, there does not appear to have been any discussion concerning this move before it was made. Becuase this is the second instance of "Fort Bliss" being moved out to "Fort Bliss, Texas', and becuase an article needs to exist under only one name, I am asking that this page be either redirected and protected or deleted and protect to prevent a third reincarnation. TomStar810 ( Talk) 22:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC) reply
DRAFT
for
Military History Style Guide
Prohibited articles: The following are prohibited articles:
1. subarticles on Census-designated places when a CDP is part of a military installation that already has an article - even when the military installation spans two states (such as Fort Bliss) and the CDP is in only one state ( Fort Bliss, Texas)