![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Seriously. There's so little material here because there's no long history to require a full article, unlike the other services which have decades, centuries even, of uniform history to cover. The uniforms lack independent notability, and can and should easily be covered in a section of the main article. This is a classic case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and false balance being used to justify an article that is unneeded. Heck, that risk article exists and Uniforms of the United States Coast Guard doesn't (it's just a redirect to the section of the main article) says a lot.
(Well, in the USCG's case it's because someone crated a Uniforms of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary article without bothering to check if there was one for the actual service; really the CG Aux uniforms are literally the regular USCG uniforms with silver buttons and insignia instead of gold, and that's really all that needs to be said about them.)
Either way, this article is an unneeded split of insufficient material for a separate article that can be easily merged back into the Space Force article without making that article too long. oknazevad ( talk) 23:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
In various USDOD style guides, employee titles (not necessarily ranks) like airman, soldier and sailor are to be capitalised when referring to US personnel. While it is understandable to deviate from that rule when referring to military personnel around the world in a generic neutral way (e.g "airmen often wear similar uniforms to soldiers", referring to a general pattern across all air and land forces), I think there is an exception to be made with "Guardians".
"Guardian" is not a general term for members of a space force, but specifically the US Space Force so I don't think that capitalizing it in line with DOD press-release style would be violating WP:NPOV as there are no other "guardians" that the capitalisation would imply greater importance or superiority to.(e.g "US Airmen and French airmen" adds weight to the US despite the ostensible equivalency, while the equivalent for space forces would be "US Guardians and French space personnel" or "US and French space personnel")
It is also important to note that "guardian" has an alternate legal and cultural usage that airmen, seamen, sailor,soldier do not. So capitalisation has a greater value in differentiating it than those terms. JSory ( talk) 16:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
"Terms such as soldier, sailor, marine, and coast guardsman are not capitalized when describing an individual or a group, but are when used as a rank."Please follow these guidelines until such time as they are changed. You are welcome to make your proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters, and see what happens. BilCat ( talk) 17:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Seriously. There's so little material here because there's no long history to require a full article, unlike the other services which have decades, centuries even, of uniform history to cover. The uniforms lack independent notability, and can and should easily be covered in a section of the main article. This is a classic case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and false balance being used to justify an article that is unneeded. Heck, that risk article exists and Uniforms of the United States Coast Guard doesn't (it's just a redirect to the section of the main article) says a lot.
(Well, in the USCG's case it's because someone crated a Uniforms of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary article without bothering to check if there was one for the actual service; really the CG Aux uniforms are literally the regular USCG uniforms with silver buttons and insignia instead of gold, and that's really all that needs to be said about them.)
Either way, this article is an unneeded split of insufficient material for a separate article that can be easily merged back into the Space Force article without making that article too long. oknazevad ( talk) 23:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
In various USDOD style guides, employee titles (not necessarily ranks) like airman, soldier and sailor are to be capitalised when referring to US personnel. While it is understandable to deviate from that rule when referring to military personnel around the world in a generic neutral way (e.g "airmen often wear similar uniforms to soldiers", referring to a general pattern across all air and land forces), I think there is an exception to be made with "Guardians".
"Guardian" is not a general term for members of a space force, but specifically the US Space Force so I don't think that capitalizing it in line with DOD press-release style would be violating WP:NPOV as there are no other "guardians" that the capitalisation would imply greater importance or superiority to.(e.g "US Airmen and French airmen" adds weight to the US despite the ostensible equivalency, while the equivalent for space forces would be "US Guardians and French space personnel" or "US and French space personnel")
It is also important to note that "guardian" has an alternate legal and cultural usage that airmen, seamen, sailor,soldier do not. So capitalisation has a greater value in differentiating it than those terms. JSory ( talk) 16:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
"Terms such as soldier, sailor, marine, and coast guardsman are not capitalized when describing an individual or a group, but are when used as a rank."Please follow these guidelines until such time as they are changed. You are welcome to make your proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters, and see what happens. BilCat ( talk) 17:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)