Talk:Fort Benning

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2025 (2)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

2603:3004:107:500:B02D:FF8C:1658:7E57 (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources, including the post's own website, make clear that Fort Moore was renamed Fort Benning on March 5 with immediate effect. There is no reason, policy-related or otherwise, to not move this article back to Fort Benning. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

This is not the proper format for making a controversial move request. This template is for making requests for edits to the article text, not for page moves. If you want to get the page moved, you must follow the process outlined at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves and make a policy-based argument in accordance with Wikipedia:Article titles#Name_changes. Additionally, this is disruption to make a WP:POINT, given that you did not gain consensus in the previous request above. As I've already pointed out early, the Department of Defense has officially stated there is "no date for the name change." So the statement that "there is no reason, policy-related or otherwise, to not move this article back to Fort Benning" holds no water whatsoever, and does not appear to be a good-faith argument. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Well I'm frightfully sorry this isn't the proper format, but the post was renamed Fort Benning two days ago, so can we please just cut out the wickilawyering and move the article back to the correct name? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I can no longer AGF with you, because you're talking bollocks and we both know it. No, the DoD did not officially state there is no date for the name change. It said Hegseth didn't specify one. Correct; he didn't - Fort Benning did when it announced the name change and said it was "effective immediately". Since then it's moved its website, covered up or removed every Fort Moore sign on post and started referring to itself exclusively as Fort Benning. The name has changed. Now can you either provide a RS that says it hasn't changed, or get out of the way and stop blocking improvements to this encyclopedia? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

If you have no substantive argument other than personal attacks and repeating the same already debunked arguments while avoiding addressing the ones that contradict your position, then you should disengage. If you're unwilling to follow our policies and think that being asked to use the correct format for your requests is "wikilawyering", and cannot refrain from disrupting Wikipedia with repeated requests when you've not established consensus on your first request, you should disengage. If you don't think you can assume good faith in a discussion where you've been extended far more leeway than most editors would have gotten, you should disengage. You've been made aware of the process for achieving what you want. Your refusal to follow that process is your own choice. You're well aware that the burden for proving your case lies with you and you've failed to meet that burden convincingly. There's really nothing more to it. Shouting into the void might be therapeutic for you, but it's exhausting and tiresome for us. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 8 March 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Fort Moore → Fort Benning – I take no position in this RM. Editors are reminded to remain civil, avoid bludgeoning, and base their arguments on the article titles policy, particularly WP:NAMECHANGES. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Support Of course it needs to be changed to Fort Benning. When the base itself has updated logos, social media accounts, and its government domain to reflect the change, it's clear that its common name has changed, de facto if not de jure. The obstinacy not to reflect the de facto change serves no purpose, IMO. Talmage (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Support It's comparable to Fort Liberty, which was moved back swiftly to its historic name. Killuminator (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

According to the DoD it took the Army just 25 days to comply with Hegseth's Feb. 10, 2025, memorandum directing the renaming of Fort Liberty -- meaning the name change did not actually take effect for nearly a month. So if you're saying this is comparable to Fort Liberty, you're saying that the name here has not in fact actually changed, yet you are voting the opposite.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm talking about the name change on Wikipedia. Killuminator (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The article for Fort Liberty was not changed back until after the Army announced that the renaming was officially complete. The first attempt at renaming the article on 29 January, before the base renaming was completed, resulted in unanimous opposition to the move, and failed. That's my point. If you're saying this is comparable to Fort Liberty's article, you're inherently arguing in opposition to a page move at this point in time, because the consensus at Fort Liberty during the same point in time was against moving. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The 29 January attempt was put forth before the name change. I'm talking about the February move proposal, which followed the name change. Wikipedia followed swiftly and it should do the same here. Killuminator (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support: it's clearly going to have to be moved, so instead of waiting, let's just change it now and stop wasting editors' time discussing when to do it. And if in 4 years' time it has to be moved back, so be it. PamD 14:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose; Premature. As of today, March 7, the Department of Defense stated "The secretary specified no date for the name change, but it took the Army just 25 days to comply with Hegseth's Feb. 10, 2025, memorandum directing the renaming of Fort Liberty." It's quite clear that the renaming is a process that happens some days or weeks after the Secretary issues the order, and that the DoD does not know what that date will be. The current website is a mess -- just a couple of days ago, it was moore.army.mil and almost all references to the installation name referred to "Fort Moore". Over the past couple of days the website has been in transition; it is now at army.mil/benning but it is still absolutely littered with places where it's referenced to as Fort Moore. So as a self-published source, the Army and the DoD collectively have an ambiguous track record for how they refer to themselves -- the renaming itself is not yet completed. Even when the Army refers to itself as Fort Benning, they do so using the future-progressive tense as to the process of renaming -- a prime example, being this source from Georgia Public Broadcasting in which the garrison commander states: “The Fort Benning Garrison team is rapidly working through the renaming process of updating our systems, facilities, and infrastructure in a deliberate and phased manner. As we update assets across Fort Benning in honor of Distinguished Service Cross recipient Cpl. Fred G. Benning, we will also continue to honor the legacy of Lt. Gen. Hal Moore’s storied military service and Julia Moore’s family and casualty notification advocacy in a manner that celebrates their significant contributions to the local community and the Army.. That article uses the phrase "Fort Moore" 5 times. A Google Search of "Fort Moore" within the past 24 hours shows over 2400 results. The fact that the renaming isn't yet completed is why there's still so many results referring to the renaming process, or to the Secretary's order to rename. So, we have inconsistency on the Army and DoD's own usage, which we see reflected in external reliable sources still using the old name in the process of reporting the as-of-yet-unfinished change. As far as WP:NAMECHANGES and our article titles policy are concerned, it's not yet established that a change is ripe. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms or names will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers. There's absolutely no need to rush to beat the Army and the DoD to a change that they haven't even finished making yet. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

"That article uses the phrase "Fort Moore" 5 times." Yes it does - but context is important. And reading the article makes it very clear that Fort Moore has been renamed and is now Fort Benning. It's pretty unambiguous about this, using language like "now that the U.S. Army post next to Columbus has been renamed back to Fort Benning" and "now that Fort Moore has been renamed back to Fort Benning". Simply counting the number of times the article uses the name "Fort Moore" doesn't really tell us much - but, if you insist on doing so, I think it's only fair to point out that the same article uses the phrase "Fort Benning" ten times. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 06:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The fact Col Evans referred to "the Fort Benning Garrison team" updating assets "across Fort Benning" says it all. The name has changed. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 05:28, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Without conceding any of the facts you assert, I would merely ask, “So what?” Are we discussing a technical legal matter or the de facto name that’s in common usage? I’m not interested in adjudicating the matter as if it were a title action under the property law of common law England. This isn’t a court. When the Army has clearly embraced one name over the other, it’s clear to me which name should prevail. Talmage (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

In response to the question of "So what?" Our policies on name changes are "what." This isn't a court -- but this is a process on a website with policies and guidelines that we expect editors to follow. We are not the Army; we're not obligated to operate by their rules or their process. That's something I personally find immensely frustrating at times, for instance, on the matter of capitalization (where I agree with the Army's preference for capitalization of terms that, here, we instead have determined by consensus must be lowercase) but this project runs by consensus and that consensus has developed into policies that place a high bar towards these kind of page moves, and we *are* obligated to operate under those regarding the evidence necessary to support a page move based on a name change. As such, I've laid out my argument for why the requested move is premature under those policies. In another 25 days that may be different, but WP:NAMECHANGE is very clear that we operate based on the status now, not the hypothetical future.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The status now is that Fort Benning is called Fort Benning, and you have nothing that says otherwise. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

When I click on the NAMECHANGE link, I read something different than what you represent it as saying. It seems the “independent, reliable, English-language sources” reflect the name Benning but you insist on a different standard of proof. Anything drafted before the announcement of the change is irrelevant when just about everything written subsequent to it uses Benning. With regard to consensus for Moore, I don’t see much of any, unless that’s judged off the character count of your verbose comments. Talmage (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I already noticed that what SWATJester reads and what other people read may not be the same thing. His insistence that both Fort Benning and the DoD are saying the name change hasn't occurred yet is just the most glaring example. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it's telling that you're unable to make a compelling point about this without devolving to personal attacks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

It's an observation, not an attack. You repeatedly claim sources say things they do not in fact say. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

And that's an WP:ASPERSION based on zero evidence, but you know this. I managed to make my argument against moving without referencing you at all. It's entirely telling but not surprising, that you find yourself categorically unable to do the same. That's fine though, keep it up, and we'll see if the Arbitration Committee agrees with you. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, there's that statement about the name change being effective immediately. You claimed it then said the name change wasn't effective immediately. It doesn't. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

And I backed up my claim with evidence -- I've showed you both that immediately following text that goes on to explain why the name change wasn't effective immediately, and then provided you the Defense.gov article from yesterday that unambiguously states that no date has been chosen for the name change. So you're unquestionably aware of the fact that your description of my position is false, yet you said it anyway. So I'm going to be very unambiguously clear: keep my name out of your mouth. Do not mention me again, unless you're prepared to do it before the Arbitration Committee. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

But this is exactly my point; the source quite simply does not say that. Nor does the Defense.gov article say no date has been chosen for the name change; it says Hegseth didn't specify one, which is not the same thing at all. The fact he didn't specify one does not mean nobody else did. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Support It's absolutely clear the post has been renamed to Fort Benning. Despite the efforts of some editors to misrepresent what sources are saying, words like "effective immediately" are completely devoid of ambiguity. Fort Moore has been renamed and is now Fort Benning. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 05:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Even the commissary is using the new name now. At this point, arguing that Fort Benning fails WP:COMMONNAME is just silly. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per precedent established at Denali. We do not change articles' names because of political whims, we change them because of changes in the common name. No evidence has been given that the proposed name is the common name. It took twenty-nine years for us to change the title of the Ukrainian capital from Kiev to Kyiv – and it is unlikely that this new name will stick in a Democratic administration. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The result of that discussion was "no consensus", which means that discussion had no precedential value. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

The post was called Fort Benning for over a century, became Moore for 18 months and is now Benning again. Benning is the common name. And if we don't change names because of political whims, why was it changed to Fort Moore in the first place? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Right now you're closer to an indef than to getting this page moved, so please stop bludgeoning as you are making yourself look very bad, and disrupting the consensus-building process. Very well, since you asked, the exact same thing happened with Denali. BOLD move, uncontested, name change by Trump, attempted move, RM. Also, you have given exactly zero evidence to demonstrate Benning being the common name, while much evidence has been given for Moore still being the common name above. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 18:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The evidence I've seen for Moore still being the common name is... not persuasive. There's a link to one article that uses the phrase "Fort Moore" five times - but uses the name Fort Benning ten times. There's the fact the Fort Benning website has a news article from last May that still says Fort Moore. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

With respect to Denali, the locals predominantly call it Denali. Is there any indication that a significant group (Wikipedia editors notwithstanding) still refer to the base as Fort Moore? The evidence from the base’s rebranding suggests this renaming isn’t comparable to the renaming of Denali. Talmage (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Point 1: No precedent was established at Denali. That discussion ended without a consensus.

Point 2: Plenty evidence has been given that Fort Benning is the common name. More evidence that Fort Benning is the common name emerges daily. There is no evidence Fort Moore is the common name. Since March 3, Fort Moore is only ever mentioned as a prefix to "is called Fort Benning again".

Point 3: It took no time at all to change the title from Fort Benning to Fort Moore after 105 years. There's no need to be any slower about changing it back after 18 months.

Point 4: It doesn't matter whether the name will or will not hypothetically stick in a future Democratic administration. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Fahrenheit666 (talk) 08:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the common name was *ever* Fort Moore, much less now that the offical name has changed. This excuse has no merit. 2605:4A80:B401:AE41:9CA9:4B06:E8AF:2E2F (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Support Fort Moore/Fort Benning is currently in the process of updating all official information including their Website, https://home.army.mil/moore/ now redirects to https://home.army.mil/benning/ . Since I live very near Ft Benning training area I subscribe to their community notice emails and it now identifies the installation as Fort Benning. As when it changed to Fort Moore it will take months to complete all updates and signage changes. Like it or not the name change is now official. Straykat99 (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

• For the love of everything, just wait two or three weeks. Oppose until then Red Slash 17:30, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose; Premature. While no-one doubts that the military base has been renamed, and that the process of updating all the relevant signage, etc. has commenced, one of the questions seems to be whether or not the change is effective from the moment the memorandum is signed or from the moment the Army has informed "the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment of its plans, including timelines and resource requirements, to implement this decision." as per the memorandum signed March 3 by the Secretary of Defense ("... all necessary and appropriate actions to implement this decision in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The Army shall inform the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment of its plans, including timelines and resource requirements, to implement this decision."), linked from the U.S. Department of Defense's press release. Or, indeed, at the moment the corresponding authority officially announces the effective name change of the military base has been completed. Press departments have their timelines, U.S. Department of Defense has its timeles, the Army has its timelines and Wikipedia has its timelines and its policies... Meanwhile, in the absence of any actual Wikipedia policy being cited to justify the requested move with such urgency, I notice that, despite the reminder at the top of this RM "to remain civil" and "avoid bludgeoning", the disrespectful comments continue. Surely that is not how consensus is built at Wikipedia? --Technopat (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Well, consensus certainly isn't built by aggressively refusing to move the article to match the actual name of the post. The post is called Fort Benning, and has been from the moment Colonel Evans said it is. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

  How about WP:NAMECHANGE as a policy justification for moving the article? After all, it says If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match.

  The news is full of things that are happening at Fort Benning, like the All Army shooting championships or the installation of new heat sensors. On the other hand, no media outlet has mentioned the former Fort Moore in over a week except to say it's called Fort Benning now. I really don't understand the policy justification for not moving the article. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Support There's no point in delaying the inevitable. It's very clear that the name has been changed and it won't change back. This is not really analogous to the name of a mountain; the US Army decides the name of its bases. Kfein (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per the precedent set at Talk:Denali. — E_F⁵ 15:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The difference is that, with Denali, local people have been calling it Denali for centuries. Nobody called Fort Benning "Fort Moore" before 2023, and nobody (outside this talk page, anyway) is calling Fort Benning "Fort Moore" now. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

No one calls it Fort Moore. 2605:4A80:B401:AE41:D009:43E6:7B44:7B06 (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Ditto that for the most part. I live in Columbus, Georgia area and very few have called it Fort Moore. Even those who didn’t oppose or didn’t care the name changed still called it Fort Benning purely out of habit. There was a lot of “…Fort Benning, I mean Moore...” in conversations.

Habits die hard and it would have to remained Fort Moore for a few more years before it would have become natural. I’m finding it odd there is still resistance to changing the article back to Fort Benning. Straykat99 (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Even if the official name hasn't been changed yet, there is no reason to delay this move, as the original name is still the most common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support because it will need to be done eventually. Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support per arguments listed above. DonBeroni (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
• Support. There's not much I agree with Trump about, but this was a stupid name change and now it's been officially changed back it's irrelevant anyway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: This is ready to be resolved in favor of the move. Leaving it open merely empowers an obstructionist minority. It is clear that nearly all sources written for weeks (except Wikipedia) now refer to the base as Fort Benning, the Army refers to it as such, and its website and digital media has been updated accordingly. Let’s get on this, @Voorts:, don’t leave us hanging. Talmage (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  Please read WP:VOLUNTEER. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  Is reading it voluntary? (I’m relatively new to Wikipedia.) Talmage (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  It basically says they don't have to do anything about it. Voorts set up the move request but isn't required to close the request or move the article. On the other hand, any uninvolved editor - which means not you or me, because we've both taken part in the discussion - can do the move. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  Then I suppose we should have a RfC to determine whether this RfC should be closed because no disinterested editor seems to care enough to do it. Talmage (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

  It does seem like the discussion has run its course, doesn't it? Any uninvolved editors out there who feel like putting an end to this? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• Support per arguments listed above. BlueShirtz (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment If one is going to cite evidence of Foort Moore being the WP:commonname then if you do search for Foort Moore, make sure that the results also exclude Fort Benning and are from post 3 March 2025. Because if you do not do this, then you risk omitting important context, because something saying "Fort Benning, formerly Fort Moore" is going to include the words "fort Moore" but will also include "Fort Benning". This applies more to the Foort Moore side because from where I stand, from Google searches, instances of "foort Moore" are always either preceded by or followed by "Fort Benning" in the way of "Fort Moore, now called Fort Benning" or "Fort Benning, formerly Fort Moore". Hence why I raise this point. I have no stake in this rename request, but thought it is something that needs to be considdered when trying to prove that Fort Moore is still the appropriate name, and not just relying on WP:statusquo as an argument when the army and other entities are changing the name. I think we will end up with a Kyiv situation in the near near future, but wanted to offer that minor advice. You don't have to listen if you don't want to but I wanted to put it out there into the ether.

198.163.159.103 (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone explain this?

The article contains an image of a pamphlet titled "Fort Benning, home of the infantry". People keep changing the caption to read "Fort Moore, home of the infantry." Why? The name Fort Moore does not appear anywhere on the pamphlet. It was not in use at the time the pamphlet was produced (which appears to be some time in the early 1980s). Is there any reason this caption should say "Fort Moore" instead of "Fort Benning"? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

This question is somewhat surprising coming from a user who is so very keen to urgently move the page to its "new" name... I would have thought that, by now, you would have at least read the article. If so, you would have seen that, in the section that explains the name, it explains that the installation was originally named for Henry L. Benning, a brigadier general in the Confederate States Army during the Civil War, and that it was "one of the ten U.S. Army installations named for former Confederate generals that were renamed on 11 May 2023" and that the "congressionally mandated Naming Commission recommended that Fort Benning be renamed Fort Moore after Lieutenant General Hal Moore and his wife Julia Compton Moore, both of whom are buried on post. On 6 October 2022, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin accepted the recommendation and directed the name change occur no later than 1 January 2024. The redesignation ceremony officially renaming Fort Benning as Fort Moore was held on 11 May 2023, the day the renaming took effect." (BTW, there you can clearly see that these kinda things don't happen overnight and that there are procedures established...)

Then, as we all know, on "March 3, 2025, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the U.S. Army to rename the base back to Fort Benning, but with the new namesake of Corporal Fred G. Benning, who earned a distinguished cross in World War I. By March 4, 2025, the "new" name and logo of Fort Benning were displayed on the offical US Army website. In other wwords, the pamphlet you refer to, "which appears to be some time in the early 1980s", does not refer to the Corporal Benning at all, but to the army officer the base was originally named after. Hope that answers your question or settles the doubts that other readers may have regarding what all the fuss is about. --Technopat (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. I am asking why the caption to an image of a pamphlet does not match the actual title of the pamphlet. Consensus was reached long ago that when mentioning events that happened while the post was previously called Fort Benning, the name Fort Benning should be used. Given that, I don't see why the caption should read "Fort Moore, home of the infantry" when the image it's referring to has nothing to do with Fort Moore at all. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my comments above didn't help resolve your doubts. I took for granted that it was obvious that if name changes occur throughout the history of a place (New Amsterdam → New York or Londinium → London), such changes wouldn't be confusing, even if there's only one page dedicated to the subject and one which specifically mentions the name changes, as opposed to two specific pages dedicated to two similar, but clearly separate [?], subjects. My fault and I'm afraid I cannot think of any other way to explain it to you. Hopefully someone else can. --Technopat (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

It seems the simple solution is to just change the caption back so it matches the title of the pamphlet it's describing. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

...which has now been done. Problem solved. That was nice and simple, wasn't it? Fahrenheit666 (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Lead missing 2023 change

As an editor from the other side of the pond, I'd never heard of this place until seeing a post on a User page discussing its name change. So I came to see what was going on, and found the lead confusing. The 2023 name change isn't mentioned in the lead, only in the "Name"section, although the 2025 move back to previous name is in the lead. I'm not going to venture into a controversial US topic to fix this, but could someone please do so? Thanks. PamD 06:01, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

It should really say "Fort Moore, formerly Fort Benning". Of course, in the circumstances, that would be a bit pathetic. Personally, if I was you I wouldn't worry about it. In a few days the article will say "Fort Benning, formerly Fort Moore". Fahrenheit666 (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

And it probably should read, "Fort Benning, temporarily Fort Moore..."Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Or (called Fort Moore from 2022-2025). It wasn't actually a temporary name change, even though it was short-lived. There's a difference. Kfein (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree. "Called Fort Moore from 2023-2025" makes clear it wasn't always called Fort Moore. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per the precedent set at Talk:Denali. (see below) — E_F⁵ 15:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused. What are you opposing? If it's the page move, that's two sections up. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Seems to have been a reply button issue. — E_F⁵ 16:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I did wonder. I've had that issue myself a couple of times. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Yea, sometimes it'll put your reply at the bottom of the page instead of the bottom of the section. :) — E_F⁵ 16:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Infantry Hall of Fame

I would enjoy a published list. My Father Col Wayne J Moe has a place there. 2601:5CE:200:28E0:7004:BB62:FCAA:7067 (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)