Talk:UNSC Army airborne: Difference between revisions
From Halopedia, the Halo wiki
m (Created page with "Giving a list of modern military units as "likely" ancestors without citations seems a bit unfounded. True, they are all well-known and effective airborne units, but the selectio...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Giving a list of modern military units as "likely" ancestors without citations seems a bit unfounded. True, they are all well-known and effective airborne units, but the selection seems arbitrarily biased towards the US military, with a token British force. I'd be more comfortable with a more general outline of airborne infantry, and a statement that this is likely the model for the UNSC version, since as yet we have nothing in the way of hard data. Hopefully this will change. -- [[User:Specops306|<b><font color=indigo>Specops306</font></b>]] [[w:c:halofanon:user:Specops306|<u><i><font color=blue><sup>Autocrat</sup></font></i></u>]] [[User talk:Specops306|<u><i><font color=purple><sup>Qur'a 'Morhek</sup></font></i></u>]] 19:49, 24 June 2011 (EDT) | Giving a list of modern military units as "likely" ancestors without citations seems a bit unfounded. True, they are all well-known and effective airborne units, but the selection seems arbitrarily biased towards the US military, with a token British force. I'd be more comfortable with a more general outline of airborne infantry, and a statement that this is likely the model for the UNSC version, since as yet we have nothing in the way of hard data. Hopefully this will change. -- [[User:Specops306|<b><font color=indigo>Specops306</font></b>]] [[w:c:halofanon:user:Specops306|<u><i><font color=blue><sup>Autocrat</sup></font></i></u>]] [[User talk:Specops306|<u><i><font color=purple><sup>Qur'a 'Morhek</sup></font></i></u>]] 19:49, 24 June 2011 (EDT) | ||
:What you regard as "token" I see as an essential link. We weren't the first nation to introduce the concept of airborne infantry, nor were we the most numerous (Germans and Soviets had us outnumbered on that front I believe). However, as the UNSC Defense Forces show a clear instance of lineage from the American, British, and Commonwealth forces, it's important to give some "background" to the article...much like we have for dozens more in the past. Nothing different here on Army Airborne. {{User:CommanderTony/Sig|June 24th, 2011}} | |||
Revision as of 20:26, June 24, 2011
Giving a list of modern military units as "likely" ancestors without citations seems a bit unfounded. True, they are all well-known and effective airborne units, but the selection seems arbitrarily biased towards the US military, with a token British force. I'd be more comfortable with a more general outline of airborne infantry, and a statement that this is likely the model for the UNSC version, since as yet we have nothing in the way of hard data. Hopefully this will change. -- Specops306 Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek 19:49, 24 June 2011 (EDT)
- What you regard as "token" I see as an essential link. We weren't the first nation to introduce the concept of airborne infantry, nor were we the most numerous (Germans and Soviets had us outnumbered on that front I believe). However, as the UNSC Defense Forces show a clear instance of lineage from the American, British, and Commonwealth forces, it's important to give some "background" to the article...much like we have for dozens more in the past. Nothing different here on Army Airborne. User:CommanderTony/Sig