Jump to content

Talk:United States Army

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 17, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
January 18, 2008WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 14, 2015.


Army Star Logo or SSI

[edit]

@McChizzle: I'm not entirely opposed to the change of the Army Star Logo to the full color Army SSI, but I just wanted to discuss it here and see if any other uses had different perspectives. Taking a quick look at Army sites, the Army Star Logo appears to be predominantly used, with the SSI only used on uniforms. I'm not opposed to the change per say, but was wondering if you could help explain to me your rationale.Garuda28 (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only rationale I have is that it's an official heraldic item, given it's an TIOH approved insignia, and physically worn by headquarters Army and other select units. This article used SSIs to identify Army formations, so it seamed appropriate to keep with that theme. As I look at it, swapping it back to the logo version in the infobox seams appropriate, but I would keep the Star Logo SSI down in the list of units table for it is more appropriate there from a theme/continuity perspective. --McChizzle (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Date format

[edit]

The dates in this article need to be done in the format of any U.S. entity, which is month/day/year. I see an edit note in the infobox that the U.S. Army uses day/month/year, and I suppose that would be interesting if we were writing a U.S. Army document but we aren't. In this encyclopedia, the format is to use U.S. date formats for U.S. entities. This should be changed. Keystone18 (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The note wasn't one person's opinion. Per MOS:MILFORMAT:
  • "In topics where a date format that differs from the usual national one is in customary usage, that format should be used for related articles: for example, articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military, should use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage.
While you are of course welcome to disagree with this guideline, you'll need a new consensus first to change it, but that seems unlikely, as it's been a guideline for many years. BilCat (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seminole Wars

[edit]

Hi Bil, I don't know exactly what your source says, but if it really claims that the Seminoles had destroyed all the other Indian tribes in Florida, then it can't be trusted. Yuchi and Choctaw lived there too. Stara Marusya (talk) 06:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious statement

[edit]

It was not US victories Plattsburgh and Baltimore that prompted British agreement on the previously rejected terms of a status quo antebellum. It was Napoleon's return from Elba! Creuzbourg (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There were only two regular regiments at the Battle of New Orleans; most soldiers were militia or volunteers. Creuzbourg (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Civil War was fought by United States Volunteers, not by the Regular Army. Creuzbourg (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]