Talk:Canadian Armed Forces

message: Not to split hairs, but I think we should use official figures for manpower. This section formerly linked to the inaccurate and inconsistent list of military strength by country on Wikipedia; the numbers constantly change, countries are out of order, and the definition of military manpower is not consistently applied from country to country.
E.g., the aforementioned figure of 52,300 for "active troops" is the approximate trained, effective strength, not the total strength of about 62,000. Total strength would include personnel going through the training system, staff temporarily on courses, sick leave, etc. One may argue about whether this is a better measure of military manpower, but since total figures are more readily available from official sources, these should be more accurate. Also, other armed forces on Wikipedia seem to define their "active" strength as total manpower (see aforementioned list). So, why not compare apples to apples? If someone wants to, we can restore the trained, effective strength, but note that this is an estimate, and keep the verified "total" figures as well.
I linked to the DND web site, plus CanadianAlly.com (which, as noted above, is actually a Government of Canada web site). Both have approximately the same figures. I think we can provide the "approximate" figures. I don't think there's any point in trying to be more precise than, say, thousands.
--Aardvark114 16:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: they do that in  aus, count all the military not just active ones, so in the aus page its active- 80 000 total 105 000--Gargabook (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manpower 

message: I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have quick-failed the article at this time. The article was nominated on August 26, but I don't see a candidate banner at the top of the page so I won't include a tag saying that it was failed. Before nominating the article again, the five or six citation needed tags need to be addressed and more sources should be added throughout the article as some sections are not sourced at all. The inline citations should also be more consistently formatted to include the author, newspaper, title, etc. See WP:CITET for some templates you can use. Some sections are only a single sentence. Either merge them into another sentence or expand on them so that the single sentences don't stand alone. Additionally, there are a lot of lists within the article, where prose would be more appropriate. Once you have addressed these issues and have looked over the rest of the criteria, consider renominating again. Good job so far, the article is very comprehensive and the images are great. --Nehrams2020 19:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA nomination quick-failed

message: The article says that Canada had the third largest navy at the end of World War Two. Other sources say Canada's was the third largest ALLIED navy, and the fourth largest in the world. Can anyone verify which is correct? PlymouthG (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I'm pretty sure this info is correct, it should still get a proper citation--CFnavymars (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of Post-World War II Armed Forces 

message: User:Bambuway has added a photo of the F-35 Lightening II, with the caption "F-35 Lightning II is set to join the Canadian Air Command". According to the official DND page on the project Canada is participating as an industrial partner in producing the aircraft, but has not committed to actually buying any, saying: "In May 2008, the Government of Canada unveiled the Canada First Defence Strategy. This strategy clearly lays out the government's intention to replace the current fleet of CF-18 aircraft with a Next Generation Fighter Capability. The Department of National Defence has completed a preliminary assessment of available options, including the F-35, and anticipates that the Next Generation Fighter Capability project will be advanced to government in 2009." If there is any more recent information indicating an actual order has been placed then let's please see it, otherwise this photo is speculative in this context and doesn't belong here. - Ahunt (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. - BilCat (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lacking any evidence of an actual order then I will remove the image. Please discuss here and provide some indication of an actual order, prior to putting it back in. - Ahunt (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo was added back in with a reference for Canada's participation in the JSF program. I've removed it again, as, again, it's still not an actual order. Oh, I may have missed the discussion here before it was re-added this time, as requested by Ahunt - I'm still looking for it, in good faith. Think I'll find it? - BilCat (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Canada bought into this program to bring manufacturing jobs to the country and has only made vague comments about actually buying any aircraft, without a firm commitment. Given our government's new record deficit spending in the last two years I think the chances of ordering any F-35s are fading fast. It is far more likely that we will end up with some leased stop-gap solution to make up for the quickly-airframe-life-expiring CF-18 fleet, combined with limiting their YFR (Yearly Flying Rate), until the next generation of unmanned fighters arrives. All that speculation on my part it to say that these are more reasons to not put a picture of the F-35 in the article until an actual order is announced. - Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: F-35 photo

message: Does anyone know about the development of the CF salute?  According to Veteran's Affairs Canada, there were three service salutes before SV Radley-Walters came up with a unified salute because the minister, mentioned as "Pallier" wanted one. I assume the minister is actually Paul Hellyer, the guy who merged all the services together into the CF. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Salutes of Canada might be a good idea, with the CF salute, the salutes that preceded it, salutes from outside the Forces, etc. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salute 

message: User:Canadian Infantry has recently added many images to this article. I think the article has now become overwhelmed with them. I propose cutting the number down. - Ahunt (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Overkill to say the least.  BC  talk to me 15:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. - BilCat (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to leave this for a few days to gain wider input, but the article was in such a state of duplicated images and such that I have gone ahead and cleaned it up. We can continue this discussion here if there are any further opinions. - Ahunt (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Hi all.  I'm not an expert Wiki editor yet but citation 2 on this page leads to a 'dead link'.  I thought someone might want to fix that.
Lewiscb (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: .Moxy (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just tested a few links, more than this one is dead now. Most likely has something to do with the whole re-formatting of GoC websites. This will have to be addressed.--CFnavymars (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 2 dead 

message: Royal Canadian Air Force, Royal Canadian Navy, etc.? Is this a sign of renewed loyalty to the Crown, now that the USA appears to be on the wane? ðarkuncoll 23:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did they revert to the old names? 

message: Perhaps someone could add this to the article. The intro to this section has a quote from an unnamed Canadaian naval officer. The author of the quote was Rear Admiral Jeffry Brock, DSO, DSC, CD, RCN, who was Vice Chief of Naval Staff in Ottawa in the early 1960s. He was forced to retire for opposing unification. The quote is from "The Thunder and the Sunshine," the second volume of his memoirs. 
This is from <http://www.navalandmilitarymuseum.org/resource_pages/controversies/unification.html> at the bottom of the page. 211.63.151.142 (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unification and beyond" section 

message: In the past several months, the Canadian government has slowly been changing from using "Canadian Forces" to "Canadian Armed Forces", the actual offial name. Within the last month, the official website has switched to using the full title in the heading and most other places on the website. Is it time to move the page to Canadian Armed Forces? - BilCat (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see from discussion number five above, this conversation has happened a few times over the years. To be clear though, the official name has not changed, only the term preferred by the Government of Canada. As an article is named based purely on common usage and not the official name or even the name used by the institution itself, it really falls to what most Canadians are using. Have you noticed which is being used in newspapers, newscasts, and other media? trackratte (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Nationality of speakers isn't really a consideration in WP:COMMONNAME, though of course it will figure in the frequency of occurrences, WPENGVAR notwithstanding. What little Canadian media I've read probably isn't enough to make a judgement on its current usage in Canada, though what I have read shows that CAF is probably increasing over CF. "Canadian Armed Forces" gets about 3.52 million ghits, while "Canadian Forces" gets about 2.97 million, for whatever it's worth, which is not much for a raw search. The reason I mentioned the website's change in name wasn't to prove it's the official name. However, the updating of the site may well signify a shift in usage from this point on, if it's not evidence that the shift has mostly occurred already. - BilCat (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually support CAF for this articles as I simply think its a more accurate title, however I would like to avoid having to change an article title every time the bureaucracy issues a new directive. However, if the facts bear out that CAF is now the most common usage, then I'm all for it. trackratte (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And to add, the most recent edition of the Maple Leaf quotes the CDS as stating something to the effect of the CAF and CF are both correct, and that the Forces will continue to use CF in all rules and regulations (such as QR&Os for example), but will use CAF in all other external writing. I can't seem to find an online PDF of the Maple Leaf since they changed the entire website around, perhaps someone else will have better lucktrackratte (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Canadian Armed Forces appears to have replaced Canadian Forces in all new military communiques and press releases. CF is being kept on for all existing orders and policy documents only until they are officially superseded or amended, so it would seem we are witnessing a phasing-out of the use of CF/Canadian Forces as the preferred nomenclature. GrahamNoyes (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "NationX Armed Forces" is commonly used in Wikipedia. Using common encyclopaedic nomenclature is a good thing and helps connect the topics. British Armed Forces is actually not commonly used either, yet it is the name of that article. I think of it as the title of the article, not the name of the organisation. So I'm all in favour. Even if the government changes it to Canadian Forces in future, this article can remain CAF.--IseeEwe (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to move to Canadian Armed Forces?

message: I believe that most people take the word "deployed" to refer to any Canadian Armed Force member serving outside of Canada. Deployed in this article, seems to refer to the CAF definition which is more short term and expeditionary in nature. I think that we can safely and for good reason expand this definition to the former, and include all members serving outside of Canada in any official manner, in NORAD, NATO, secondments to other forces, embassies, High Commissions, and other military postings. --IseeEwe (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Deployed means personnel serving on operations inside or outside of Canada. Secondments, NORAD, embassies, etc. shouldn't be included as they are not deployments, they are postings. If people are using the term wrong then Wikipedia is the perfect platform to explain it to them :) --CFnavymars (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Deployed" 

message: Will bring this up before there is a big edit war again. The page has just been moved with the reasoning being "Moved to current common name per talk page consensus", This is completely incorrect as seen above by the many talks. I suggest we stick with the norm and start a new talk on the matter an RfC on the matter. Lets try to keep a cool head here...lets assume good faith on BilCat part here. I would also agree to RAF...but lest see what other have to say.-- Moxy (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: TBH I don't understand the problem. I'm a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, and we did receive a directive two years ago to refer to it as the CAF rather than the CF. According to the National Defence Act either could be used, since the CAF is the one service of the CF, but if the organization is currently favouring CAF why would we keep it at CF here? Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The consensus in the above section seems clear to me, that CAF is now the common name along with being the official name. We've waited over two years since the directive was issued to move the page, and I reverted earlier moves at least twice as being premature. If you want to run an RFC, that's fine with me, but I honestly don't think it's necessary. - BilCat (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: RFC is definitely not the way to go here, CAF is now the common usage as Ajraddatz stated above.--CFnavymars (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely prefer the simple and non-confusing term "CF", however, the mandate handed down by the government was clearly to be called CAF. Until such time as the government changes their mind, the military can be called CF, but is officially CAF and the page should stay that way. Even if it doesn't make sense and complicates naming conventions that have held for over twenty years. You don't have to like it, you have to follow official statements.--Cpt ricard (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non consensus move 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Canadian Armed Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140728005416/http://forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-current/index.page to http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-current/index.page
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: - Ahunt (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Canadian Armed Forces. 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/20090215182932/http://www.ctv.ca:80/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070402/vimy_90years_070402 to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070402/vimy_90years_070402
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - Ahunt (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Canadian Armed Forces. 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/20120331092659/http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/new_item_en_en_298cms.htm to http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/new_item_en_en_298cms.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120331092659/http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/new_item_en_en_298cms.htm to http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/new_item_en_en_298cms.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091130104437/http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-n-5/latest/rsc-1985-c-n-5.html to http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-n-5/latest/rsc-1985-c-n-5.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706181618/http://www.outcan.forces.gc.ca/sites/page-eng.asp?page=8890 to http://www.outcan.forces.gc.ca/sites/page-eng.asp?page=8890
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070402/vimy_90years_070402
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) 01:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Royal 22e Regiment is a francophone unit.   When referring to this unit, the Anglicised version, 22nd, it never used.  It is always the Royal 22e Regiment (in French).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_22nd_Regiment
68.202.193.3 (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia you linked to as proof actually disagrees with you in the fist sentence. - Ahunt (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal 22e Regiment 

message: We have an editor who is edit warring to include "authorized strength" numbers in the info in lieu of actual strength numbers. Template:Infobox national military outlines which numbers are to be used in the box. It says, "active – optional – The total number of personnel currently in the country's armed forces." and "reserve – optional – The total number of reserve personnel in the country's armed forces". The use of "authorized strength" numbers is misleading as the military is unable to fill those empty positions and so this does not give any useful information on current military capabilities. It also makes this article out of line with all other similar articles across Wikipedia. To change the intent of the box requires a whole new consensus and not on this one article, but for all articles on all national militaries. - Ahunt (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of authorized strength numbers in the infobox

message: The Canadian Armed Forces underwent a period of decline after the 1968 Canadian Election. Pierre Trudeau's foreign policy shifted Canada's post World War Two strength to a NATO policy critics described as offering "all aid, short of help".[1] Canada's international military commitments further declined with the centralizing of power over the Canadian Armed Forces into the Privy Council Office, taking control over from the Department of National Defense. This action led to excessive spending and over regulating that resulted in "merciless disengagement from broad alliance priorities", particularly in Europe.[1]
The effects of the severe cuts in military expenditure under the Mulroney government was demonstrated with Canada's lack of significant military participation in the Gulf War. David Charters. a director of the University of New Brunswick's Centre for Conflict Studies after the Gulf War concluded that the international perception of Canada as a peacekeeping force, and not a belligerant force, had been maintained.[2] The subsiding of the Cold War led Finance Minister Michael Wilson to announce budget cuts that would lead to the scaling down or closing of 14 Canadian Forces bases.[3] The April 1989 Budget by Wilson also outlined a plan to cut the budget of the Department of National Defence by $2.74 billion over five years.[4] This action combined with the cancellation of the Canada-class submarine led the Canadian Armed Forces to become a secondary priority for future governments.
In 1993 the Somali affair seriously damaged the reputation of the Canadian Armed Forces. The beating to death of a Somali teenager by two Canadian soldiers while on a humanitarian mission and attempted cover up by military leadership resulted in the disbanding of Canada's elite Canadian Airborne Regiment.
Canada's military prestiege and reputation suffered further harm under the Chrétien, Martin, and Harper Governments during the Afghanistan War. At the height of Canada's military contribution to the conflict from 2007 to 2009 in Kandahar Province, the lack of ground troops required Canadian commanders to focus efforts on urban centres, leaving the rural areas without a consistent Canadian presence. This lead to the area surrounding the City of Kandahar to be controlled by warlords, criminals, and insurgents.[5] Limited resources and a few thousand Canadian soldiers on the ground meant that limited change could occur especially within an area of 54 000 km or roughly the size of New Brunswick. On March 17, 2009 Greg Gutfeld insulted the Canadian Military when "Lt. 'Gen. Andrew Leslie, chief of land staff, suggested in early March that the military may need a year-long break in operations due to personnel and equipment shortages.[6] The event drew significant Canadian national attention and a subsequent apology from Greg Gutfeld.
In an attempt to have a balanced budget heading into the 2015 Canadian Election the Harper government by 2014-2015 promised to slash $1.1 billion from the roughly $20 billion defence budget. In order to achieve this the government delayed the procurement of equipment for seven years, allowing the triming of hundreds of millions of dollars from the defence budget each year.[7]
Canada has been unable to return to its previous levels of international engagement after the significant cuts in the late 1960s and 70s. During the period equipment in the Airforce, Army, and Navy was left unmaintained and unreplaced. The Canadian Armed Forces under successive governments as a result have been unable to recover to previous levels of international military engagement.[8]
Criticism over the direction and changes to the purpose of the Canadian Armed Forces since the 1960s and onward is held by some in leadership positions. The "unification, bilingualism and peacekeeping had, in addition to overt civilianization of (the) [National Defence Headquarters], seriously eroded the professional foundations of army educational and training establishments set up after the [Second World War]".[9] Decisions for the Canadian Armed Forces since the Trudeau Government of the late 1960s and onward have continued to be made by those in officially approved highly bureacratized slots.[9]
The Trump Administration has been critical of NATO allies not reaching the targeted 2 percent of GDP funding on Military spending, particularly of the Canadian Government.[10]
1.^ Head, Ivan (December 1996). "The Canadian way: shaping Canada's foreign policy, 1968-1984 // Review". Books in Canada. 25 – via ProQuest.
2.^ Allen, Glen (March 1991). "Peacekeepers at war: Canada forges a postwar role". Maclean's – via Academic OneFile.
3.^ Spears, John (May 1989). "Closing of P.E.I. armed forces base like a 'bomb dropping,' mayor says: [ME2 Edition]". Toronto Star – via ProQuest.
4.^ Wu, Terry; Fetterly, Ross (June 1990). "Canadian Defence Policy: An analysis". Canadian Public Policy. 16: 161–173 – via JSTOR.
5.^ Breede, Christian (October 2014). "Defining Success: Canada in Afghanistan 2006–2011". American Review of Canadian Studies – via Scholars Portal Journals.
6.^ "Fox News host apologizes in face of Canadian outrage". CTV News. 23 March 2009. Retrieved 1 July 2019.
7.^ Campbell, Clark (29 March 2012). "Deep cuts to military mark reversal for Harper". The Globe and Mail.
8.^ Robinson, Bill; Abbott, Peter (March 2003). "Canadian military spending: How does the current level compare to historical levels? ... to allied spending? ... to potential threats?" (PDF). project ploughshares – via ploughshares.
9.^ Jump up to: a b English, John (Summer 1998). "[Lament for an army: the decline of Canadian military professionalism]". International Journal. 53 – via ProQuest.
10.^ Tasker, John (11 July 2018). "Trump says NATO allies like Canada are 'delinquent' on military spending. Is he wrong?". CBC. Retrieved 1 July 2019.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by XXEastonXx1 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a small improvement over the first draft that was removed from the article. At least it reads less like a pre-election CPC attack on the LPC. The main problem I have is that it cherry picks refs and text to achieve a conclusion that isn't supported by the historical facts. In smaller detail: PE Trudeau's government was responsible for buying the CF-18 fleet and the Iroquois-class destroyers, while Harper's administration actively ignored the CF-18 replacement and the need for a new fixed wing SAR aircraft, cutting the defence budget while engaging in the Afghan War. The current Trudeau government has procured used Australian CF-18s and restarted the CF-18 replacement process, as well as buying new SAR fixed wing aircraft. But all of these are really minor details. If you study Canada's defence since the British regulars were withdrawn in the period after the War of 1812, you will find that Canada's defence policy from then to present has been extraordinarily consistent through all the many Liberal and Conservative administrations. If you set aside the two force built ups for the two world wars as unusual circumstances, then the rest is very uniform. There is no trend line there. All those governments saw fit to provide the nation with a very small military that is only capable of carrying  out limited domestic and foreign operations. It doesn't make sense to discuss the military history from 1968 to present as some sort of "military bleeding of a once-great force". It was exactly the same during the Fenian Raids (1866-1871), when the nation had to put Army Cadets on active service due to lack of troops, or the Northwest Rebellion (1885) when we couldn't even get what troops we had to Saskatchewan in a timely manner to put down a very small group of rebels. We sent all we could to the South African War at the turn of the 20th century: 7,000 troops. That was it. During the October Crisis in 1970, we called out pretty much everyone available to just guard a few vital points in Montreal. The point is that today our military is in much the same position it was in 1866, 1900, 1914, 1939 and 1970. The section you are proposing makes it look like there was a grand decline in military capability through unintentional government neglect, but the bigger picture shows that a small armed forces has always been the intentional policy of all governments right from Confederation and even before that, due to a longstanding peace with the US following 1814. Despite regular media and academic hand-wringing and the two unusual large mobilizations (1914 and 1939), the nation has otherwise had a very consistent 150 year policy of spending its tax money on other priorities. If you want to include a section on the history of defence spending then it needs to take a much longer view. - Ahunt (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decline of Canada's military prestige 

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether :Portal:Canadian Armed Forces is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Canadian Armed Forces until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 01:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Portal:Canadian Armed Forces]] for deletion 

message: A recent edit added "CA" after Gen Eyre's name, "RCAF" after LGen Allen's name, etc. This is not appropriate with the modern CAF structure and organization. RCN, CA and RCAF are not military services like they were before 1968. They are commands within the unified single service called the CAF. The senior leadership and other members of the CDS office are not members of the RCN, CA or RCAF. There are many other organizational units as well that aren't part of those three commands. Indefatigable (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is not right. Thanks for removing it. - Ahunt (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Service" initials after names of members of command team