Talk:Regular army

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: National This article 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. Associated task forces: /  National militaries task force Law This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

On 13 February 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved to Regular military. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Requested move 13 February 2025

Latest comment: 5 months ago8 comments7 people in discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 17:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

---

Regular army → Regular militaryRegular military – Consistency with Irregular military, subject as described could technically include non-army branches like navy or air force. Orchastrattor (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 16:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Merge and redirect to Standing army. Essentially the same thing. No need for two separate articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
• Weak merge per Necrothesp - I am not fully certain, as it appears "Regular army" might be a broader topic than a "Standing army", but they do appear to be very similar topics and I can see the benefit of having them on the same article, however I might defer if anybody has a particularly strong argument against it. ASUKITE 16:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 16:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose -- the "Regular army" is the name for the full-time active component of the U.S. Army, not the "regular military." These terms sound similar but do *not* mean the same thing in a technical military context, at least in the U.S. and the U.K.; the fact that the page lacks sufficient content to adequately address that is a different issue altogether (it should probably be either a full disambiguation page linking to both the US and UK articles, and possibly to regular military as well; or a redirect to the U.S. page solely since the UK version would be a double-redirect and make less logical sense). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose army and military have different meanings. Army is always land forces, military is often a wider term including all armed forces (ie navy and air force as well). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose keep as it is, it is pretty clear how it is now. 109.245.36.83 (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.