This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was Move to "Royal Italian Army". —Wknight94 (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Support, the only question being whether Royal Italian Army would not be better. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 16:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
That is what is used in the article, and I found several sources that use both. In fact in Italian the "Italian" is never use, so it is reasonable to add "Italian" in English to distinguish from other royal armies British Royal Army, Yugoslav Royal Army, etc. Royal Italian Army, while used in literature, is not in suitable format for a reference work that seeks to use the actual format of the original organisation where grammatically possible. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Support move to Royal Italian Army (211 Google Books hits vs 30 for Italian Royal Army; 41-8 on Google Scholar). English-language sources predominantly used "Royal Italian Army", and that, not the desire to hew to the "actual format of the original organisation", is what should drive our choice. After all, sources are the primary way to determine usage, and usage is what concerns us, right? BiruitorulTalk 04:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Support move to Royal Italian Army, as per WP:COMMONNAME as Mrg & Biruitorol have said - used in literature. Buckshot06(prof) 09:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Support move per Msg; support to Royal Italian Army, as the other "royal armies" are all official titles given. The Evil Spartan (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, he did not mention that Google Books shows 822 hits for "Regio Esercito". The current article seems to conform to usage in English-language publications. Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually its 1252 hits in Google books, however I did not use Google books as the basis for my request. Almost all these books define the term at the start, and use it throughout the book, which is what generates the hit count. However, the English translation in these books is one of the two suggested, having looked though about 40 works including in Amazon, so that is why I had no problems changing the request to that proposed by Biruitorul. Ultimately we want the English usage --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The English usage is Regio Esercito. 822 is more than 29 (or even 222). Noel S McFerran (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but that is only because Regio Esercito is used through the books after being translated. As a unique reference it seems to have an English name--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Please look a the results in Google Books. Your contention is incorrect. Noel S McFerran (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The article cites no references or sources, therefore must be a stub. Some attention to basic referencing (preferably books) should see it to start. To progress further, coverage needs to be widened and some well chosen illustrations incorporated. I wish you well with it - it's a major topic and deserves a good article Monstrelet (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)