Talk:United States Army

RFD discussion

I would like this to be undeleted (or recreated) despite its being the sum of its parts. Kappa

Why? --EncycloPetey 02:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, it is an attributively used proper noun. For another, it is a proper noun (with very high frequency in the English language.) For another, it is pointed to by other entries. For another, it is the referent of the abbreviation. For another, "sum of parts" is never a valid reason for deletion (on its own.) etc. --Connel MacKenzie 09:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that "referent of an entry" is a reason for inclusion? That's a slippery slope to tread down. --EncycloPetey 05:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. Yes, I am suggesting that past discussions concluded "referent of an entry", indeed, is justification in and of itself, for inclusion. You're going to make me find the link (probably in Wiktionary talk:CFI) now, aren't you? Grrr. --Connel MacKenzie 15:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Really? I remember we had voted to delete American Academy of Facial, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, but I guess you'd want to recreate that as well? Hope not. DAVilla 03:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that abbreviation went with it (or should have, if it didn't.) Right? --Connel MacKenzie 02:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The abbreviation was never nominated. There are a good number of abbreviations that have never been nominated. DAVilla 20:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Undelete. It's as valid as Royal Navy, Royal Mail et al. Jonathan Webley 09:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The difference with terms like Royal Navy and Royal Air Force is that those terms contain no self-evident context for whose forces they are. The United States Army is quite clearly the army of the United States. --EncycloPetey 05:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So it is POV to keep Royal Navy while deleting US Navy. --Connel MacKenzie 02:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. The meaning of US Navy, British Navy, and French Navy are all transparent. The term Royal Navy is not, since it requires one to know which Royal owns the navy. --EncycloPetey 02:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That is not sane. Which United States are you talking about? The United Mexican States? The United States of Belgium? The United States of Brazil? The United States of Central America? The United States of Colombia? The United States of Indonesia? The United States of Venezuela? Or do you mean one of the half dozen fictional United States? Which "Royal" my arse. --Connel MacKenzie 10:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Odd, but I don't see United States defined to mean any of those things. --EncycloPetey 17:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC) (happy citation hunting!)

Holy smokes! Look at this! One of our sister projects is an entire encyclopedia! Who would have guessed? US. "Royal" does not imply anything other than "British" - so you cannot suggest that United States Army or United States Navy be deleted without also deleting Royal Navy. If you did, it would not be following the neutral point of view guideline by any stretch of the imagination. Denying that is beyond absurd. --Connel MacKenzie 19:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"Royal" does not imply anything other than "British"? Excuse me? I never knew that the British had a monopoly on monarchy. I guess the Danes, Norwegians, French, Spanish, etc will all have to rewrite their history books, since they never had royals. --EncycloPetey 19:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No need for sarcasm. DAVilla 20:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Believing that our position is objective is beyond absurd? Please don't insult our logic. You already have three or four other contributors who agree with you, and the term isn't likely to be deleted. There's more need for temperament than temper.

Disambiguation pages on Wikipedia routinely show a good number of related topics. Have a look at w:Einstein, w:Kennedy, w:Douglass, or just about any other proper name. Linguistically, only a few Kennedies, probably only one Einstein, and maybe not even Douglass could be included here, if we continue to restrict ourselves so. I don't see how United States could be mistaken for any of the listed songs, ships, etc. in a general context. Even if it could, United States + Army would still rely on the most obvious sense, and that isn't at all ambiguous in this case. It's sum of parts, even if inclusion-worthy by some other criterion. The word royal on the other hand has several definitions, at the moment none of them listing Britain. Maybe that should be added at Royal, but even so there's a serious case for ambiguity. Royal Mail = letters addressed to the King or his family? That's no so unlikely with a lower-case m. The big M couldn't make it obviously British, do you think? DAVilla 20:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Recreated with link to -pedia. Can we also have US Cavalry - as come to the rescue in Westerns SemperBlotto 09:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

So, are we going to include United States Navy, United States ambassador, United States government, United States Post Office, United States Supreme Court, United States Senate, etc? I say that this is a general pattern in which United States functions as an adjective, and not worthy of inclusion in the form of all the compounds. --EncycloPetey 05:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Delete. Or are we also to have Russian Army, Chinese Army, Indian Army, Brazilian Army, etc.? bd2412 T 10:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It’s a set phrase, as is also US Cavalry and a few of the other sugguestions. Some other suggestions really are not set phrases, including "Russian Army", "Chinese Army", Indian Army", and "Brazilian Army". They are not even called those things in their own respective countries. On the other hand, Red Army is a set phrase. —Stephen 17:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, Indian Army is a set phrase, since it referred to that part of the British Army in India during the raj (at least, I think so -- I'm not an expert in it). (BTW, raj in the sense of when Britain ruled India as a colony -- we don't have that def yet -- I checked months ago that it's citeable, but haven't got round to adding it yet.) --Enginear 12:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. However, United States Army is pretty straightforward. Not linguistic. Delete. DAVilla 02:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, delete. --EncycloPetey 23:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep. --Connel MacKenzie 02:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed my mind (or, more accurately, was convinced that I was in error). Keep. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I vote to keep this proviso quod Connel can find an example of United States (or an example showing variant capitalisation) used to mean something associated with a country other than the United States of America. Furthermore, for fairness’s sake an example ought to be presented for Royal used to mean something associated with a royal family other than the House of Windsor. † Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• See w:Royal Navy (disambiguation) for several "Royal X Nay" and "Royal Navy of X" constructions (I can't find any cites for the Jordanian "Royal Navy Force"). Thryduulf

RFD discussion: October–November 2011

See Talk:United States Marine Corps.