Military history: National / North America / United States 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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Template This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  National militaries task force North American military history task force United States military history task force

United States Template‑class

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.

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.

(unindent)
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]

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]

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]

In the edit summary for this revision, I misspoke. I mean to say "service department" instead of "branch". bahamut0013^words_deeds 21:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 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? 207.161.217.209 (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. 207.161.217.209 (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. 207.161.217.209 (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. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I'm still wanting to know in what way it was broken. 207.161.217.209 (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? 207.161.217.209 (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? 207.161.217.209 (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? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging User:BilCat. 207.161.217.209 (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? 207.161.217.209 (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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]

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]

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]

The only place I can find the "United States Armed Forces" defined in Code is in the Nevada Administrative Code: https://www.law.cornell.edu/regulations/nevada/NAC-686A-4915 says they are "all components of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard" effective 1 September 2007. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The U.S. Navy's own style guide of writing shows that "U.S. Armed Forces" is used. It is unreasonable to think that "U.S." represents anything but "United States". Neovu79 (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your note Neovu79. I was aware of the style guide(s); that is why I specifically headed [originally titled - later edit] this section "In Code." We use official documents to determine what we name official entities, as far as possible.

Generally that means law and title. U.S. code (10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(4) -https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/101#a_4) specifically references nothing more than "the armed forces."

Specifically "(4) The term “armed forces” means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force, and Coast Guard." https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=10-USC-1618412883-428121670

So the "United States Armed Forces" have no legal basis.

Thus not the "United States Armed Forces"; rather the "armed forces;" possibly perhaps the "United States armed forces" or "Armed forces of the United States," only because one capitalizes the first word of a sentence. "United States Armed Forces" is much more widely used on Wiki than in the professional literature.

Buckshot06 (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Worse still, because "armed forces" is what is in law, Nevada has not gotten around to updating their code, which could lead to members of the Space Force breaching alcohol-related ordinances in Nevada without consequences. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you in part, that there is no legal basis to U.S. Armed Forces, however does there have to be? Entities exist without legal basis all the time. The NOAA Corps for example, doesn't refer to themselves the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as defined in 10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(4). Whether the U.S. Armed Forces has legal basis is moot, since the use not defined by law. Meaning that the entities themselves would have the ability to set their own policy on its usage, without being constrained or limited by law.

I believe we should use WP:STYLE and WP:COMMONNAME to determine the name of this article. I've come across a few instances of the use of U.S. Armed Forces within the JCS, here, here, and here. But there is an abundant use of the term Armed forces of the United States being used in their archieve search. The media likes to refer to them as U.S. military but the military seems use the term The Armed Forces the most. I am open to the idea of renaming the article Armed forces of the United States as it seems to be the most WP:COMMONNAME for all the services. Of course, this would have to be brought up to a !vote on the actual Talk:United States Armed Forces for a consensus, but I think there would be a lot of strong opinions on this change. Neovu79 (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly. Law does not equal WP article name practices, and people are often super attached to terms that don't get much use outside of WP. I believe the article should be at either "United States armed forces" or "Armed forces of the United States" and did a move to the first version years ago, swiftly reverted with much critical comment made. You can see the results if you look in the talkpage archives of Talk:United States Armed Forces. Do you think it is worthwhile taking this issue to a !vote there? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pesco this is my issue. U.S. Code, Annotated, does not mention or utilize the term "United States Armed Forces." Your opinions are welcome. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Buckshot06 as long as we can give the masses WP:VERIFIABLE proof that and understandable reason that is should be moved, I think it has a chance. For example, National Guard (United States) was moved to its current form, from National Guard of the United States and United States National Guard due to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION after a previous failed attempt. It was @Thewolfchild that initially reached out to me about trying again to rename it. Neovu79 (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

/Archive 2 in that talk archive documents an additional separate move request to "United States armed forces." Buckshot06 (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC) Thewolfchild your views welcome here. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that failed because of the Navy's MoS. I think Armed forces of the United States stands a better chance since there is no WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION to reference and it would conform to the Uniformed services of the United States. Neovu79 (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've now read (or re-read) this entire discussion, and that said, I think it may be best to create an RfC on the matter, then post notices about it on the various related WikiProjects and get some extra eyeballs on it. Couldn't hurt, could it? (JMHO) Cheers - wolf 06:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think there's much better to advise readers of the flow of the discussion than to direct them right here, so I have placed notices at Wikiproject USA; Wikiproject Milhist; and Talk:United States Armed Forces. All interested are very welcome to put their views. Happy New Year. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My view is that while MILMOS says the official name is usually used, in this case there doesn't appear to be one, and in any case UCN trumps all. Usage in Congress might provide a guide. Congressional reports use "United States Armed Forces" [1], as do Congressional resolutions [2] and bill amendments [3]. What do specialist books on the US armed forces call it? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neither "United States Armed Forces" (which appears, broadly, to be a wiki-ism) nor "Armed forces of the United States" are generally used in the specialist / professional literature. This is because for professional purposes what exists is the Department of Defense, and for Coast Guard purposes, Transportation and now Homeland Security. What is used is DOD. Under that and with reference to DOD or the United States, various versions of "armed forces" - just like that - are used. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From what I can see, internally within the US government and the US Code, "armed forces" is clearly preferred, but WP is not the US government and there appears to be no "official name" at all, per WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME, so in the absence of an official name, we are therefore (based on that policy) looking for a consensus position on what article title to use. Congress uses "United States Armed Forces" so it is hardly a Wiki-ism. There is absolutely no reason at all why WP can't use "United States Armed Forces". "Armed Forces of the United States" might have the same effect in terms of clarity, but is not as WP:CONCISE. We are not going to title this article "Armed forces (United States)" as that would be rejecting natural disambiguation in favour of parenthetical disambiguation (and it would be US-centric, which we have quite enough of already across en WP). I see no reason at all to change the current title based on our policies, except potentially using the provisional title policy, which is "Military of the United States". Is anyone here actually proposing a new title? If so, what is it? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the English wikipedia, with official documents readily available, we should conform as closely as possible to legal title if there is no COMMONNAME. I support Neovu79's viewpoint: Armed forces of the United States, "since there is no WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION to reference and it would conform to the Uniformed services of the United States." Buckshot06 (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where does that come from? The guidelines say official name, not legal name, and why is "Armed Forces of the United States" any closer to "Armed Forces" than "United States Armed Forces", which is more concise? The logic here completely escapes me. Peacemaker67

My preference would be some kind of "Armed forces", to conform to US Code. But it needs a disambiguator. Thus if there is support for "Armed forces of the United States," then that is my preference.

(click to talk to me) 07:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC) I tend to think the reasons for there not being a "common legal name" or whatever lie more in the Constitution than USC (Title 10 or otherwise). Professional literature tends to focus on the branches, and DOD only enters the picture after World War II. The proposed "armed forces of the United States" makes the most sense in light of this. Intothatdarkness 15:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC) ETA Title 10 (101 Definitions) specifically refers to the Armed Forces as "(4) The term "armed forces" means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force, and Coast Guard.(5) The term "uniformed services" means—(A) the armed forces; (B) the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and (C) the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service." This means under the code governing the US military writ large Armed Forces would be the preferred title for much of what we do here, and Armed Forces of the United States is a logical modification. Intothatdarkness 15:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure if it's clear; because "armed forces" is not capitalized in the Code, I would prefer "Armed forces of the United States," there's no legal wording suggesting capitalize them. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep as-is. I believe this template should remain named United States Armed Forces. There is no dispute that these six services are the armed forces, and I believe it is appropriate that these six be the scope of this template. The only other acceptable form would be Armed Forces of the United States, with varying capitalization, but after looking at many other countries' titles on English Wikipedia, it appears the standard format is "(Demonym/Noun) Armed Forces" (French, Mexican, Canadian, British, Indian, etc) without needing specific legal meaning of that term. Therefore, it's not wrong to refer to it as United States Armed Forces and is stylistically consistent. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 21:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Straw poll

I think we have a few common positions emerging, so maybe we can go to the straw poll stage.

Everybody would you kindly please indicate support for:

• (a) "Armed forces of the United States"
  • Buckshot06 (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Cuprum17 (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• (b) Current title, "United States Armed Forces"
  • [Probably Pesco]
• (c) Other suggestions as people wish.
  • Neutral: I'd prefer it as is, but I would not be opposed to changing it to (a). Neovu79 (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neutral: I'd prefer it as is, but I would not be opposed to changing it to (a) Cuprum17 (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Buckshot06 (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not much a turnout here on a straw poll. Maybe this doesn't matter much to the editors that shadow this page. Just an observation.Cuprum17 (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My gawd... I can't believe you guys are still banging on about this. If it's AF ot US or USAF, I !vote the latter. - wolf 07:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]