Template talk:US Special Operations Forces

United States: Military history Template‑class

	United States portal This template 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
Template	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This template is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force.

RFC - should "Psychological Operations" be listed as a "type" under the Air Force and Navy?[edit]

I know very little about this topic, and I may be misunderstanding something, but glancing at the article Psychological Operations (United States), it appears that while "Psychological Operations" units are primarily found in the US Army, they can also be found in the US Navy and Air Force. So should "Psychological Operations" be added as a "type" to the Navy and Air Force sections of this template? --Jpcase (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you need a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC for this? Have you exhausted all of the suggestions at WP:RFCBEFORE? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. Are they part of USSOCOM - if yes, yes. If not, no. Army’s are, I’m not sure about the other services. Garuda28 (talk) 21:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redrose64 My assumption is that few people are watching this talk page, so I didn't want to just open a regular discussion here and never receive any replies. I suppose that I could have opened a discussion at WT:MILHIST, but I wasn't confident that I would get a lot of replies there either. I didn't think that there would be any harm in opening an RfC, but I'm not super familiar with the RfC process, so apologies if I made the wrong call. We can close this, if you think it necessary. I just want to make sure that the issue is resolved.

Garuda28 Yeah, I don't know either, but that's a good point. Hopefully someone with more knowledge of the topic will respond! --Jpcase (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can hold a discussion here and inform WT:MILHIST (and any other interested groups) about it, see WP:APPNOTE - just make it clear that you are posting a notification concerning the discussion here and not starting a new discussion there; you can use {{fyi}} for this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did actually drop a note over at WT:MILHIST upon opening the RfC. But it doesn't seem to have drawn much notice so far. I'll go ahead and remove the RfC, if you think that's the way to go. If no one from MILHIST responds, then I can probably find my answer elsewhere. --Jpcase (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpcase: I would think the answer is rather simple and obvious; what do the sources say? - wolf 03:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64:, why not address 'RfC vs other options' with the OP on their user talk page, and keep this thread on topic? Not that I disagree with your concerns, but I only suggest this as it's a shame when discussions get derailed or prolonged unnecessarily. - wolf 03:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]