WikiProject Military history (Rated Template-Class)
This template 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.
Temp Templates and modules do not require a rating on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject United States (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon
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 This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

State Defense Forces

Should we include a link to State Defense Force in this navbox? Comments? Thoughts? Streltzer (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No it should not. 32 U.S.C. § 109 of the U.S. Code of law specifically states that the State Defense Force is an organized militia ("Notes" section) and is not recognized as a reserve of active component of the U.S. military. Neovu79 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I agree with that point, are we considering just the Military of the United States, or military in the United States? While I would vote the former, there is really no other place to navigate to them. We could link to it in the navbox and note that the defense forces are unofficial militias. bahamut0013 00:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The State Defense Force is not considered as military by law though, but I'm not opposed to a link somewhere to get notority for them. Neovu79 (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By law or by fact, militias are military organizations, and they are indeed government sponsored (albeit state government sponsored). Let's give a day or so for more than three people to chime in. bahamut0013 00:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Militia is not military. That's like saying the local police force is military. Militia is made up of ordinary citizens, not federal appointed regular forces. While militia does mean different things in other countries, I thought that this was about U.S. military not another countries' definition. However, I'm inclined to give it a day or two. :-) Neovu79 (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take a look at militia and paramilitary. Being federally-sponsored is not the only definition of military, in the US or otherwise. Militias may not be professional forces, but they are armed soldiers that fight other military forces. bahamut0013 11:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The federal government funds a lot of programs that are not federally recognized. The National Guard is considered militia in the eyes of the goverment, however the National Guard of the United States is a reserve military component. Your point is moot. The Militia Act of 1903 established a seperation between the military and miltia. Neovu79 (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The National Guard of the United States is both a state militia, and when activated, a federal reserve. The distinction given in the article National Guard Bureau seems to refer to the state militia... which is the state defense force: an organized militia for a state the supports the organized federal national guard. So, in essence, each state has two organized militas: the federal National Guard and its own national guard/state defense force. While 32 USC does provide a distinguishment between a state national guard and a state defense force, it doesn't provide a distinguishment between the state and federal national guards; it seems that the federal government sees the national guard as its own all the time, even when not called up, but so does the state... the National Guard is, again, both state and federal! Trying to distinguish between National Guard, National Guard of the United States, and State militia is tricky because a given unit can shift between definitions with an order and a bit of paperwork.
In any case, you missed my point: the definitions set by the federal government are not necessarily the encyclopedic definitions of Wikipedia. The US Government holds many things to be truth in law, but are not truth in practice, and vice versa. To be properly encyclopedic, we must consider what is reality. bahamut0013 12:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. take a look at Template talk:NGbystate, I left a message there a while ago and it doesn't seem you have yet responded.

I think we're both getting to "attached" here and let's not let our differing opinions get ahead of ourselves. I'm on you're side here. :-) I want to help make this template better as much as you do, not hurt it. You are incorrect in one thing though. Tile 32, specifically,32 U.S.C. § 101, does provide a distinction between the National Guard and the National Guard of the United States. Members or units in the National Guard of the United States are federally recognized changing their status from militia to reserve military. The President does not need to receive the consent of their respective state governor to be activated just like regular reserves because consent is already given when the member or unit received its recognition. You are correct that the National Guard is both state and federal but only because the National Guard of the United States receives its troops from the state National Guard. While it "seems" that the federal government has control over the National Guard, it is in fact not true. Title 10 limits the President's power over the National Guard establishing the separation of power between the President and state governors over nonfederalized state National Guard. If Guard members or units of the National Guard (state National Guard) are not part of the National Guard of the United States, the President must seek the consent of the respective governor before activation. The government has the right to refuse this if he or she deems necessary. This is reaffirmed in the Insurrection Act, specifically, Pub.L. 110-181 or the National Defense Authorization Act 2008. Also the Militia Act of 1903 does establish the National Guard Bureau but for the management of federalized National Guards not nonferderalized guardsmen. However 10 U.S.C. § 10501 does establish a channel of communication for nonfederalized National Guard to the Department of Defense. So in the aspect that the difference appear minute, it definitely establish a separation. Now to your point, because of the way the law is written, I do not consider the State Defense Force as part of the United States military. They can not even be called in times of war by the government to help with standing invasion. For example, if a neighboring state is being invaded, the governor can refuse to send State Defense Force unit(s) to aid the invading state if so choose. Neovu79 (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC) P.S. I didn't leave a response in Template talk:NGbystate because I didn't disagree with you. :-) Neovu79 (talk) 05:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I forgot, 10 U.S.C. § 10503 also states that the National Guard Bureau prescribes the training discipline and training requirements/policies for the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard and the allocation of Federal funds for the training of the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard. However, the Bureau does not have managing or operational control over the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard. :-) Neovu79 (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be honest, I really don't care if it is included in the navbox or not, I'm enjoying the debate. I do try to keep WP:OWN in mind.
I think the crux of the disagreement here is that we have somewhat differing ideas of the scope of the navbox and/or whether the definition of military includes militia. My opinion is that any sort of formal government armed force tasked with a defensive or offensive mission (as opposed to law enforcement or investigation) is military, which includes militia. I feel that the scope of this navbox would includes both regular military, reserve, state militia, and state reserve. It's obvious you don't.
I think we can come to a compromise here. We can use this navbox to cover the federal sphere of influence here, wich covers everything but state-only forces and private militias; and then create another navbox (Template:Military in the United States vs. military of the US) to include all other armed military forces. We could even list private militia (even the wackjobs) on the latter navbox. That would provide navigation for your definition and mine. bahamut0013 15:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That could work. I have no objections to it. Neovu79 (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a bad solution...I like it. Streltzer (talk) 14:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

piped link

As a practical consideration, having a piped link point to a redirect to help distinguish a name is pointless. This is a navigational template, its purpose is to help users navigate between related articles, not establish the fine minutae between the versions of the national guard. Most users wouldn't notice anyway. It is also discouraged per editing guidelines, see the "exceptions" section. bahamut0013 13:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While pipe link for this may be bad, I'm trying to help educate people to understand that there is a fine but separate line between militia and military in the U.S. Neovu79 (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think your point might be lost on all but the most observant readers. The only reason I noticed (aside from having the navbox in my watchlist) is popups. In any case, the article linked to makes that distinction pretty well. In any case, the first person to use AWB in the navbox category will fix the redirects anyway. bahamut0013 15:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uniforms of the United States Military

Why does the link for 'uniforms' in this template, link to the article Military uniform and not to Uniforms of the United States Military. A covering article for the Uniforms of the United States Army, Uniforms of the United States Marine Corps, Uniforms of the United States Navy, Uniforms of the United States Air Force and Uniforms of the United States Coast Guard pages. Mr Taz (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably because such an article doesn't exist. Should it come into existence, it would obviously be a more approrpriate link. There is no point in having a red link in a navbox, waiting for the redlinked article to be created, when there is a perfectly acceptable alternative article already in existence.
If you want to be bold and make the article, I would be happy to link to it! bahamut0013 17:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorrect edit summary

In the edit summary for this revision, I misspoke. I mean to say "service department" instead of "branch". bahamut0013wordsdeeds 21:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Naval militia

The naval militia is a federally recognized reserve component made up of Navy and Marine Corps reservists who, like the National Guard, serve a dual state and federal mission. It is essentially the Navy version of the National Guard. Given its nature as a federally armed and equipped reserve component of the U.S. forces, I believe it belongs in this template. I wanted to make sure nobody could think of any reasons not to include it before adding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Et0048 (talkcontribs) 21:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I changed the state from autocollapse to collapsed as the navbox is an entire screen-length in size. Having been reverted by User:BilCat, I'm starting a discussion on the talk page. BilCat, why would we want to have the template expanded by default when it takes up the entire screen? (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because whatever you changed apparently broke the navbox. I don't know how to fix it, so I reverted it back to its pre-broken state. - BilCat (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:BilCat: Broken in what way? I don't notice anything, to be honest. (talk) 05:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me try something slightly different and let me know if you run into the same problem. (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's probably better if you quit trying to fix it yourself, and get a consensus to make a change first, per WP:BRD. The Autocollapse doesn't mean it's expanded by default when used with other navboxes, only by itself, which is probably rare. - BilCat (talk) 05:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're in the D (discussion) phase right now and I haven't heard any objection – from you or anyone else. (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I'm still wanting to know in what way it was broken. (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you have to ask that, you shouldn't be making changes to the navbox at all. And I've been objecting all along. - BilCat (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm doing my best to have a productive discussion here. When I say "objection", I of course mean raising a specific concern about the edit itself. (Wanting discussion first is not such an objection; see Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus".) So again I ask, in what way was it broken both times that you reverted? (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a navbox used across a number of pages, it's always a good idea to discuss changes first, especially if you don't know what you're doing, which you obviously don't. I actually a answered what, but you kept adding on comments which edit conflicted with my answers. First, I never once saw it collapsed after you made any of your changes. I looked at several articles, and they all had more than one navbox, so it displayed collapsed. It might be helpful if you tell me where it appears alone so I can test it. Second, your first edits broke the Show/hide toggle. Third, the include tags are misplaced, and may be causing other problems. Finally, some people, including myself like to have the navbox autocollapsed, as it displays uncollapsed on the template page. Since that's really a preference issue, you need several people to agree to changing the status quo. - BilCat (talk) 06:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I looked at several articles, and they all had more than one navbox, so it displayed collapsed.

American official war artists, Tricare, and United States military pay, among others, just have this one navbox.

Second, your first edits broke the Show/hide toggle.

In what respect? It appears to be working in this revision.

Third, the include tags are misplaced, and may be causing other problems.

How should it be placed?

Finally, some people, including myself like to have the navbox autocollapsed, as it displays uncollapsed on the template page. Since that's really a preference issue, you need several people to agree to changing the status quo.

Surely the matter of the template's display on the template is secondary to its display in articles. Am I correct in understanding that you have no issue in principle to the template being collapsed by default? (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See here for the malfunctioning show/hide toggle. Sigh. - BilCat (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's odd, the show/hide works for me in the revision to which you linked as well. If it's not working for you there, is it working for you in the revision to which I linked? (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging User:BilCat. (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Ebonelm, regarding your recent revert, I'm wondering what objection you have to the change? (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should "United States military divers" article be included?

I found the article United States military divers and I was wondering if it should be included in the template.*Trekker (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably not, as we don't include all the other types of military jobs. - BilCat (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thanks. I'm kind of confused by what exactly goes into templates sometimes. I feel like every project has different rules.*Trekker (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not like this navbox is small and in need of more links. :) - BilCat (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I know. It's probably one of the biggest I've seen.*Trekker (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose removal of the NOAA and PHS

These are uniformed services and not armed services, so I propose they be removed from the navboxGaruda28 (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Potential page move?

Hello! I have noticed that the majority of templates use the "Template:Military of XXXXX". Would this be a preferred option in order to organize templates by country? The whole method of categorizing national military templates right now is unorganized. Russia is "Template:Armed Forces of the Russian Federation", the United Kingdom is "Template:British Armed Forces" (similar to this template). Just an idea. ----ZiaLater (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is probably better discussed in a single location such as Talk:MILHIST. - BilCat (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]