Talk:Canadian Army

message: Though the naval and air components got back Distinctive Environmental Uniforms (DEU's) in the 1980s, there is still a single service, the Canadian Forces.--MarshallStack 06:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Forces are still unified 

message: Who drew up these rank insignia? A few changes need to be made:
# There are no more combat epaulettes, they're now all CADPAT.
# When worn on epaulettes, chevrons have straight arms, not curved.
# Army NCM rank is only worn on epaulettes on combats, not on any other uniform. On dress uniforms they appear on the sleeve or as metal miniatures on the collar.
I may just do it myself eventually, I now have CorelPaint for Etch-a-Sketch. SigPig 04:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been trying. I tried to make a CADPAT 2Lt slip-on...can you say "dog's breakfast"? But yeah, I found the website where they were gotten from. Also, you are right, there are still some OD ranks out there; as a matter of fact, I still had them on MY raincoat and parks when I turned them in June past. Quick question -- images on Cdn gov't websites have something called "Crown copyright"...can they still be used on Wikipedia under "fair use"? Tks   SigPig 23:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rank insignia

message: Out of curiosity, are Americans allowed to enter the Canadian Army? According the "US Army" article, almost anyone can enter the American army. --Anglius 20:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thank you, sir.--Anglius 23:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Americans

message: Greetings. Does anyone have a summary of Canadian units in Afghanistan in 2008. I want to update this section…
Coalition_combat_operations_in_Afghanistan_in_2008#Canada
Cheers Chwyatt (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian order of battle in Afghanistan 2008

message: The image :Image:PPCLI.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be valid for the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry article though, wouldn’t it? Chwyatt (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:PPCLI.JPG

message: Are the dates referred to for the equipment tables service dates or procurement dates?  It should be clarified before 'end' dates are added. - Jonathon A H (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equipment dates 

message: you two stop edit warring and come to this talkpage now, before you both get blocked!--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 14:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably better to not have the images here, as they are already at Canadian Forces ranks and insignia, which is a more appropriate article for them. - BilCat (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Bilcat, but they are edit warring over it, Pdfpdf claims to be in bed now, but the edit war as gone on sice as late as 1 pm today where I am--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 14:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that - I'm just giving my opinion on the issue. - BilCat (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

text:  They clearly violate at least two criteria of NFCC here.  Mind you, the ranks and insignia page is not much better, and is actually one of the most unfree pages on Wikipedia. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: so what are we supposed to do with the images? is delta (betacommand) right? by the looks of things both editors are being scolded over at ANI but no one wants to punish them to give either the satisfaction of winning--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 08:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Replace with User:Zscout370/gallery#Fri_Jan_07_01:46:03_CST_2011. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delta and Pdfpdf edit war 

message: As of 2011, regular force of the Canadian forces is over 69 000. Army website says 19 500, Air force says 12 000, Navy says 9 000. For a great total of 40 500...
Where's the rest ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.58.135.95 (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the REAL current size of the LFC Regular Forces 

message: on 15 August 2011 per WT:MILHIST. New name, see The Chronicle Herald. CharlieEchoTango 00:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article was moved to Canadian Army

message: This version of the badge seems more official than the current one: http://www.thehuntingbroker.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/land_force_command_badge_n111781.jpg . If anybody could change the current one to this, it would be much nicer. I would like to, but frankly, I don't know how to. Thank you!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceshuttlediscovery (talk • contribs) 02:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Army Badge 

message: I disagree with these being in the “Engagements” section of the info box:
* American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present)
* Operation Impact
The Canadian involvement in the conflict has so far been only air and special forces, and under the Canadian Forces organization, neither of these are part of “Canadian Army.” In fact to be even more technical, the RCAF has not engaged in the conflict: the aerial operations are under Canadian Joint Operations Command using equipment and personnel borrowed from the RCAF. Canadian Special Operations Forces Command and Canadian Joint Operations Command are not part of RCN, Canadian Army or RCAF, but distinct organizations within the Canadian Forces.
I would like to hear the views of other editors. Indefatigable (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 600 Canadian military personnel engaged in Operation Impact only 69 of which are Special Operations Force members. Many of the rest are army support personnel (cooks, technicians, medics, etc.) While their role is not combat they are still army personnel deployed to a combat zone. Incidentally many of the members of CANSOFCOM are army personnel, including their commander Brigadier-General Michael Rouleau. On another point, it is a redundancy to list Operation Impact alongside the Intervention in Iraq, the two are the same thing as far as Canadian forces are concerned. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engagements in the info box 2 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Canadian Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100115015948/http://www.navalandmilitarymuseum.org/resource_pages/controversies/unification.html to http://www.navalandmilitarymuseum.org/resource_pages/controversies/unification.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051027053642/http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/ to http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The page mentions the Army currently using the GP35. What were the previous standard sidearms?  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The Canadian Amy has been using the the Browning HP since World War II; In World War I they were issued the British Webley, or the Smith & Wesson Model 2. In the Boer War era Canadian Militia officers and RCMP used the Colt Model 1878.  Mediatech492 (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick-draw 

message: Doesn't seem to meet NJOURNAL and would seem to fall just below the bar of GNG, though there's been a bit of coverage. Eddie891  Talk Work  16:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good ...not much there.--Moxy 🍁 16:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

text: If you're going to merge it, it should be merged with Canadian Armed Forces as the CMJ is the CAF's journal, not the Canadian Army's. The Canadian Army Journal is the CA equivalent. trackratte (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Canadian Military Journal]] into [[Canadian Army]] 

message: G'day, I am the Australian who's taken an interest in this fair article. It has come to my attention... well for a long while, that the page is less than ideal. Therefore I'd like to propose a rework to help better this page. The objectives for the rework is an expanded summary of the history, structure rationalisation, and standardisation. My intention is to bring it in line with other like articles, and akin to the Australian Army page. Full disclosure, I was the one who expanded the history section and reworked the intro and references of the linked page, and would use it for inspiration in the restructuring of the article. All input is welcome... especially since I'm a natural outsider to all of this history. Cheers, IronBattalion (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structural changes 

message: A discussion has been started at . Please contribute there. Indefatigable (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chain of command in infobox