Talk:Army Service Forces

message: This patch was known to be used outside the stated "Active" period of 9 March 1942 – 11 June 1946. It was worn by members of the United States Data Support Command (USADATCOM). USADATCOM was the data processing arm of the Adjutant General's Command, Department of the Army, headquartered in the Pentagon. It is known to have been used during the period of my tour of duty with USADATCOM, Sept 1966 - Sept 1967.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.157.125 (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Periods of Usage 

message: The United States Army Services of Supply was renamed the Army Service Forces on 12 March 1943. Anyone think the two pages should be merged?
June w (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The two articles are about different things. The Army Service Forces article is about the command in the United States. The SOS article is concerned with the ones overseas. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge this page? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Army Service 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/20080531143034/http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil:80/Alpha/Department%20of%20Army%20Staff%20Support.htm to http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/Alpha/Department%20of%20Army%20Staff%20Support.htm
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) 08:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The dispute in spelling and changes to "bureux" is not well supported by the references in the article itself. While a quick search of .mil sites will find hits on "bureaux" in U.S. publications the more common, modern, U.S. usage appears to be "bureaus" and contention that "bureaux" is the proper spelling is not supported. As for referenced material, Supplying the Troops: General Somervell and American Logistics in World War II uses "bureaus" as in "General Staff was, among many things, to supervise the supply bureaus" and "All the supply bureaus were under its wing." Others, potential references in the article:
"Finally, the very existence of divided authority caused uneasiness in the General
Staff, which was mindful of its long struggle to control the supply and administrative bureaus." (Leighton & Coakley: The War Department — Global Logistics And Strategy 1940–1943)
"Judge Hastie called the situation to the attention of the War Department Director of Civilian Personnel and Training and the heads of the bureaus and requested that investigations be made of specific cases." (Fairchild & Grossman: The War Department — The Army and Industrial Manpower"
My personal view with decades of reading the histories is that "bureaux" in "American English" is "Huh? A bit pretentious." as it is not all that common and, whether accusations of degradation of knowledge of origins are valid or not, a bit of a "bump" in reading. The article is about U.S. military, thus U.S. standard, current usage should predominate. I'll go for the one U.S. readers will not notice as "Huh?" and "bureaus" here. Palmeira (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The bureaux are now bureaus.  This is an American military organization and American English is called for (Les bureaux sont "bureaus" pour les purtistes.)  At least the rail cars were only wagons, not waggons. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling: "bureaus" v. "bureaux"