Talk:3rd Cavalry Regiment (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

3d versus 3rd[edit]

Just so no one tries to rename this article again: "3d" is not a typo. The U.S. Army uses "3d" instead of "3rd". (Atfyfe 20:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC))

Can you source this? --ExarPalantas (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Somewhere there are official army documents explaining why and which units use "3d" rather than "3rd" (all of them?). However, instead of hunting that down, here is a good enough source: It's the 3d ACR's unit website. Notice their use of "3d" rather than "3rd". - Atfyfe (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
You didn't say that just Third ACR uses that notation; you said "The U.S. Army uses...", so pointing me just to Third ACR's site doesn't support your statement. I can find numerous Army sites that use "2nd" and "3rd," like here for example: If you're going to comment on the policy of an entire organization, you should be prepared to point to something supporting that. "There are documents somewhere" is not a source. ExarPalantas (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
A Rebuttal? I am not trying to prove anything to you. I was just trying to be helpful. If you want to change it to "3rd" then go ahead. I can lead a horse to water but I can't make him drink. It's also the army's policy to spell "Soldier" with an uppercase "S", but I bet I can find plenty of instances of official documents where the world is spelled with a lowercase "s". You know why? Because it's a big organization with lots of people who don't always know the grammatical policy of the army about every trivial thing. In any case, the unit's site should be good enough evidence for the name of the unit. Do you really think the 3d ACR's site says “3d” instead of “3rd” just as a typo? Furthermore, there are plenty of official documents on the 3d ACR site (regimental history, policy letters, etc.) that uses “3d” rather than “3rd”, and I think the unit itself is the best authority on its own name. Perhaps this is where you are confused: I don't know what other units the army uses “3d” instead of “3rd”, I am ONLY claiming that the correct name for the 3d ACR uses “3d”. I have seen other units use it (and many who seem not to, as you pointed out), so I am not sure exactly how the policy works. But often the army has odd naming conventions. Perhaps because some unit names date from an earlier time when different abbreviations might have been prevalent and more modern units use today's abbreviations (e.g. the 3d ACR is a lot older than the 101st Airborne, which its the unit the link you gave describes). Perhaps it's a cavalry thing. I wish I knew, but that doesn't change the obvious point that at least the 3d ACR's name is with a “3d”. I'm not going around changing the names of other army units, I'm just making a claim about this one. When I said "The U.S. Army uses '3d' instead of '3rd'" I was refering to what the Army uses for the name of the 3d ACR. - Atfyfe (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
You're writing in an encyclopedia. The information you're telling the general public about the US Army should be verifiable and conform to doctrine. I think Third ACR's site says "3d" because the E-4 or whoever that put it together heard from some guy who heard from some guy that it was "3d," and never actually bothered looking it up. However, that's just my opinion (you know, not verifiable), so I'm willing to accept "3d" as an abbreviation for the unit. What you might do is look around online for a discussion of Army naming customs, and include a section in the article about the history of using "3d" instead of the standard abbreviation. ExarPalantas (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I think I might have jumped on you a bit there. We were talking past one another. I gave you the link to the 3d ACR site because I was trying to point out that “3d” is used by the army for the 3d ACR. I was not trying to establish a larger claim about how the army names other units. The army does seem to use “3d” for some other units, but I do not know what determines which units get “3d” and which get “3rd”. I was annoyed because I clearly the 3d ACR website is a good enough source for establishing the name of the 3d ACR, which is all that I have been claiming. - Atfyfe (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I put "rd" on my memorandums, because I think "d" looks damn stupid. It's embarassing if I'm circulating correspondence to non-DoD or foreign agencies, because they assume it's a typo, and now my documents look unprofessional. Once in a great while, a grumpy NCO will tell me that it's "d" and not "rd." Then I ask him what regulation it's in. He can't tell me; end of conversation. I have this short conversation about once a year, and so far, not one single person can even give me a hint as to what publication supports this. Above you mentioned "official documents." Have you ever seen these documents? Was it an AR? An FM? A policy letter? I can tell you it's not in the ARs for correspondence or the writing guide for army leaders. I looked it up a long time ago when someone first brought this up. I would love to know where this custom came from. ExarPalantas (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I am a Soldier in the 3d ACR, and would like to put an end to this argument. The Regiment of Mounted Riflemen, The Brave Rifles, are officially named the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, by an act of congress. The "3d" has been in use since 1861, when the Regiment was officially designated as the 3d United States Cavalry Regiment, during the Army's reorganization of it's mounted units. At the end of the WWII, our unit was redesignated as the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment. Here are some references, and everyone can look for themselves... Websites: 1) 2) & 3) Also, I do not know why this is, and maybe someone can enlighten us here... It is true that Brigade Combat Teams and probably other units use the full suffix, such as -th and -rd. For example, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division. In 3d ACR's case, I agree that dropping the r in the rd suffix of causes confusion amongst the general public and to those outside these units. However, the arguments regarding the matter is arbitrary, and it is not a subject matter open for debate. As far as Brave Rifles are concerned, we are officially the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment. The official Regimental abbreviation is 3d ACR, as stated in our Regimental customs and traditions, page 61 of the Blood and Steel book. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. In researching this I've also found that "3d" instead of "3rd" is not as uncommon as one might think. For example, the catholic church apparently uses "3d" instead of "3rd" for Popes. - Atfyfe (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
This argument started from Atfyfe's statement "The U.S. Army uses '3d' instead of '3rd'." It's at the top of the page. Explain how your references that Third ACR uses "3d" demonstrates that either A.) The entire US Army uses that notation, or B.) That "Somewhere there are official army documents explaining why and which units use '3d' rather than '3rd.'" That Third ACR uses "3d" has never particularly been in dispute here. Do you know what a red herring is? --ExarPalantas (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you're just misinterpreting what Atfyfe meant when he wrote that. I feel that he only meant to say "The U.S. Army uses "3d" instead of "3rd" [in naming the 3d ACR]", to inform people who were mistakenly changing the name of the article, and not as a blanket statement about the US Army's naming system. Hyalos (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
It's terrific you feel that way, but I'm afraid I can only interpret what someone actually wrote. If Atfyfe had wanted to inform people who were changing the name of the article that, in his experience, some units use "3d," then he should have said exactly that. Instead, he made two claims that he hasn't even attempted to back up, nor has he retracted them. --ExarPalantas (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
First, you were misinterpreting what I said, but I also wasn't be clear in my first post. However, I then clarified that I only meant to inform people who were mistakenly renaming the article. I didn't realize you weren't just making an uniformed mistake but actually out on a crusade against "3d". But since you are: Second, someone above did a fine job of backing up my claim (the unsigned user As he says, "as stated in our Regimental customs and traditions, page 61 of the Blood and Steel book" the name of the unit is 3d ACR. I would assume if the unit itself considers it to be "3d" that is the name used on all of their official orders, documents, etc. Furthermore, it would appear that the unit was named at a time where 3d was more common than 3rd. Here's a passage from concerning records of the naming of the unit in 1861 ( You'll notice that not only is the 3d CR named with a "3d" but all of the units used "3d" at the time:
391.3.2 Records of 1st-6th Cavalry Regiments
History: Regiment of dragoons organized, March 1833; designated 1st Regiment of Dragoons, 1836, when the 2d Dragoons (designated the Regiment of Riflemen, March 1843-April 1844) was raised. Regiment of Mounted Riflemen organized, May 1846. Two additional regiments, designated 1st and 2d Cavalry, organized, March 1855. Sixth regiment, designated 3d Cavalry, raised, May 1861, and confirmed by an act of July 29, 1861 (12 Stat. 279). By an act of August 3, 1861 (12 Stat. 289), the 1st and 2d Dragoons, the Mounted Riflemen, and the 1st and 2d Cavalry were redesignated 1st-5th Cavalry Regiments, respectively; and the old 3d Cavalry became the new 6th Cavalry. Textual Records: Regimental, battalion, squadron, troop (company), and detachment records, including letters sent and received, correspondence, issuances, rosters, descriptive books and lists, muster rolls and returns, morning reports, and histories, of the 1st Cavalry Regiment (and 1st Dragoons), 1833- 1916; 2d Cavalry Regiment (and 2d Dragoons and Riflemen), 1837, 1907; 3d Cavalry Regiment (and Mounted Riflemen), 1846-1918; 4th Cavalry Regiment (and 1st Cavalry), 1855-1919; 5th Cavalry Regiment (and 2d Cavalry), 1855-1920; and 6th Cavalry Regiment (and 3d Cavalry), 1861-1915. Records of the 4th Cavalry include records of the Powder River Expedition, 1876. Records of the 6th Cavalry include reports and correspondence relating to operations in Tientsin, China, during the Boxer Rebellion, 1900.
So there you go, when the unit got named they used 3d. The unit just recently changed from 3d ACR to 3d CR, so it might be worth digging up whatever orders were involved with that name change to make sure "3d" was used. However, since the 3d CR website uses "3d" I would assume the orders changing their name from an ACR to a CR also involved a "3d". No, there is no official army grammar book. Is that what you took me to be claiming? But there are the documents naming the units, the unit's own official policies, and documents/orders/etc. Those all support "3d" and other than you finding "3d" weird (it's not as uncommon as you seem to think it is), I am not sure why you are not dropping this. - Atfyfe (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI, here's a copy of my orders ( for a unit award when I was with 3d ACR which shows the 3d still in use, and I'm linking it directly from the Army's HRC database. Here is the history of Blood and Steel ( pulled directly from Fort Hood. 3d is still plastered all over Fort Hood as 3d despite what Wikipedia wants to think otherwise. Those who never served in the U.S. military have no idea how some things are just done. And that is a pity. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 06:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Civil War service[edit]

When an article about the 3rd U.S. Cavalry Regiment is created, this page should be removed from Category:Union Army regiments and cross-referenced to those articles. Twisted86 06:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Corrections and Removal[edit]

I corrected several scattered instances of "3rd," "third cavalry," and the like to the standard "3d Cavalry;" as well as "[the] regiment" to "Regiment."

In the section about CPT David Rozelle, I removed this statement: "One of the contributing factors that caused this was that Capt. Rozelle had failed to line the bottom of his Humvee with sand bags. This was to supposed to help prevent the blast from entering the vehicle. Has he followed this order, the injury might not have been that substantial." In addition to the poor writing, this section is uninformed speculation. First, there is no reliable source cited for the existence of an order regarding sand bags (because there was no such order) and second, a sand bag-lined floor would not have mitigated the effects of an anti-tank mine explosion on the occupants of a Humvee. 17:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think the statement is out-of-line. I don't know how CPT Rozelle's Troop ran, but in my unit the idea that sandbags ought to be put at the bottom of our Humvees was not a command but more of a rumor that soldiers didn't know what exactly to make of. Plus the sandbags could only be fitted to a very small portion of the bottom of the Humvee. -- Atfyfe () 04:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Squadron sub-sections[edit]

I standardized the initial format for the squadron sub-sections in the "Origins" section to make them all look the same. I filled in most of the unit "nicknames" from memory, but I've forgotten some, namely HHT, 4th Squadron and HHT, Support Squadron. Also, the Howitzer Batteries for 2d and 3d Squadrons are "Lion" and "Regulator," but I'm not sure which one was which. I haven't been able to find a source for these at the official unit site,,, or anywhere else, so somebody with a better memory than me will have to fill those in.

Also, the Longknife Squadron unit history could use a little cleaning up, and the last paragraph of the Muleskinner Squadron section (regarding OIF III) is of questionable notability. Mike f 16:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

HHT SPT is Bullwhip - fixed that. I also cleaned up some of the Muleskinner history for OIF3, but I don't know enough about 4/3 to touch that. My suggestion would be to check the "Mounted Rifleman" magazine (posted obscurely on the ft carson website) for better info and history. Also, I noticed that at some point DarthBinky took out "At present, the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment is the only heavy armored cavalry regiment left in the Army," in the header, stating that the 11th and 2nd still exist. Well, yes, they exist, but they are light cavalry regiments, not heavy, as in, our 3ACR's Abrams will roll right over your 2ACR Bradley. Sorry, Binky, I'm putting it back. -Rich-cat the Pad God 00:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What do we do about Troop names that have changed over time? When I was in C Troop 89-91, it was "Cyclone" Troop, not "Crazyhorse," and we had cyclones painted on the frontal slope portion of the turret of the tanks (don't remember about the Bradleys tho). 03:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

forgot to login, previous question is mine Aramis1250 03:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Still no movement on this issue. Crazyhorse troop is not the nickname of C troop through all of the history of the regiment, and before I make an edit to this page I need some informed feedback about how to handle this issue. Aramis1250 (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Organisation and History[edit]

I've been trying to track down the changes in unit size, organisation, and equipment over the years. Obviously, there's the shift from horses to tanks, but info on the US Army's armoured cavalry regiments is a bit thin. For instance, a lot of detail about the current unit, less on earlier times. Some of this just needs linking to the correct article, I'm sure, but a couple of references suggest that not all the periodic reorganisations of units were applied to all the ACRs. I get the feeling that it needs an insider to explain it all to the rest of us. Zhochaka 14:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Steve-o.JPG[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Steve-o.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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. (While I personally disagree that we have to respect "official name" in every nitpicking aspect, especially like this one). Duja 14:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't be too controversial ... the unit's official designation is "3d", NOT "3rd", so the article should be named accordingly (see WP:MILHIST#Military_units_and_formations). Also see —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike f (talkcontribs) 17:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

However, all of the text uses 3rd, and 3rd gets double the number of Google hits, so it is obviously thought to be correct by someone... Conrad.Irwin 22:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The text of this article uses "3rd" because the same person who moved the article changed all instances of "3d" to "3rd" at the same time. I don't know why the Google hits are they way they are, but I would refer to the unit's official site again: as well as a few official documents that use "3d": ; ; not to mention the unit's official history: . So, just because "someone" thinks "3rd" is correct does not make it so. Mike f 22:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is "helpful" people who come along every so often and switch everything from 3d to 3rd. I never corrected it only because I saw that this was probably both a re-occurring and systemic problem with all the units that should be "3d" instead of "3rd" (for example: 3rd Infantry Division (United States)). What we really need is a wide-ranging and permanent solution to keep “3d” safe from careless editors on all the entries it appears. - Atfyfe 23:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC) - Atfyfe 23:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Conrad.Irwin, it isn't correct it is just an easy mistake to make. If I asked any of the civilians in the coffee shop I'm in right now to write down the name "Third Infantry Division" I am sure they will all write down "3rd Infantry Division". This is wrong, but there is no reason they would know better. - Atfyfe 23:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
With the 3rd/3d Infantry Division, it's a little more debatable because the unit's official website uses "3rd" most often, with a few scattered uses of "3d" here and there. While that may or may not be "officially" correct according to the unit's MTOE or other such documents (I've noticed that the Army generally uses the all-capital form "2D" and "3D" on such documents), that appears to be the way the unit commonly refers to itself. With the 3d ACR, the unit invariably refers to itself specifically as "3d" -- not "3rd," not "3D," not "3RD," not "3ACR," or any other variation -- for reasons related to the unit's history. I'm sure if one looked hard enough, they could dig up an official document with "3rd ACR" on it, but that's a rare exception (usually a typo by an uninformed individual), not the rule. Mike f 00:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I propose keeping the "3rd" designation as it is more usual and obvious. See other military unit names, as they are all designated as "3rd", not "3d". In my opinion, "3d" designation seems like an typing error to the most of the readers. --Eurocopter tigre 18:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, according to WP:MILHIST#UNITNAME "The name should generally be the official name used by the armed forces to which the unit belongs..." Whether most of the readers think it's a typo or not doesn't matter; "3d" is the designation used by the U.S. Army -- "the armed forces to which the unit belongs." Mike f 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
If WP:MILHIST regulations say that, I have nothing to complain anymore. --Eurocopter tigre 19:37, 17 September 2007 (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.

Unit structure[edit]

I added a graphic of the 3d Armored Cavalry Regiments structure. However this is the old structure, which will change with the ongoing Transformation of the United States Army. The new structure will be the standardized Heavy armored brigade structure, but as I did not find any information today about which units will survive the transformation, I created a graphic with todays structure. As soon as someone knows what the new structure will be (especially what will happen with the 4th Squadron), let me know and I will update the graphic. --noclador 19:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


This image should fit in somewhere in this article. --rxnd (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Kaiserslautern, Germany[edit]

Infodom (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The 3rd Reconnaissance Squadron (and I think also the 2nd) were stationed at Kapaun Kaserne in Vogelweh, Germany, just outside of Kaiserslautern, from 1961 to 1968. I was there in 1963 and 64, assigned to Headquarters Troop. When not hanging around in the Kaserne, the "Third of the Third" went on maneuvers, we went to the tank range at Grafenwöhr, and we pulled guard duty on the Czech Border. The night that JFK was assassinated (it was night in Germany) MPs zoomed all over town looking for GIs in the streets and the bars and ordered them back to base. All leaves and passes were canceled and we were put on high alert. We assembled in the parade ground fully armed all Friday night and Saturday morning. About noon it was decided that World War III would not break out after all and leaves and passes were reinstated. You can find a lot more history of this unit here:

Go to the main page:

to see what else is available there.

Requested move 2014[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved to 3d Cavalry Regiment (United States): per discussion, there is consensus on adding the country. It is not clear that consesnsus exists for "3rd" instead of "3d", so that should be the subject of a separate move discussion Ground Zero | t 18:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

3d Cavalry Regiment3rd Cavalry Regiment (United States) – First, this is far from the only topic with this name; there's also an Indian unit and an Australian unit with articles (see Third Cavalry), and the Military history project prefers to use disambiguations by default. Second, as for 3rd vs 3d, the U.S. military is not very consistent about ordinals, as you can see from a simple Google search, and as documented for a similar case at Talk:2nd Cavalry Regiment (United States)#Requested move 2014. "3rd" is normal in English, and some editors think this consistency matters, —innotata 04:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Suport this title should redirect to the disambiguation page. -- (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't Support, except we have already had the fight over 3rd versus 3d. The name of the unit is "3d" just like Popes are numbers. Think of the number as part of the unit's proper name, not as wikipedia numbering the cavalry units in the army (if that was the case then the numbers wouldn't jump around the way they do). I can support the addition of (United States), but 3d would be incorrect. - Atfyfe (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Can you find something that actually says that?? It's abundantly clear the Army is not at all consistent; it seems like they just use "3d" often to shorten the name further. —innotata 04:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
From page 60 of the 3d ACR's own guide and history ( -
"Other Customs and Traditions
Regimental Abbreviation
Since August of 1861, when using the numeral “3” in stead of the word “Third”, the proper form is “3d” with a small case “d”. An upper case “D” is never used, nor are “R”, “r”, “3ACR”, or “3SCR”. The only authorized nomenclatures for the Regiment are: 3d Cavalry Regiment, 3d CR and 3d Cavalry Regiment (Stryker); never 3d SCR."
- Atfyfe (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: and support using (United States). Reasoning; I edit military units in this and other countries and I don't see a problem with a US regiment including (United States) in the title. To me using a disambig when it could be avoided is unnecessary. As far as 3d versus 3rd I have only been confronted with 3d a few times. For consistency I would use what most others use which would be "3rd". Here (also showing 3d as shortened) is one list that I know of and I am sure others can be checked. "IF" an article is about something being numbered in the United States it is correct to use 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th (see the left side) as that is common and universally understood. There is an exception at the beginning (3d), the 2nd paragraph, and on the left is the 503d Infantry. Throughout the article 3rd is used far more than 3d. Otr500 (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Extra comment: I did a Google search here and the first page was 6 using 3rd and 4 using 3d. A problem I have is that I support the more common name over "official" almost every time but I utterly detest a blanket use of Google just to try to show numbers. Army Times uses 3rd, DOD uses 3rd, news media uses 3rd, [ Fort Hood] uses 3rd in the article heading but does use 3d. The headlines on the right all use 3rd. Stars and Stripes here uses 3rd. The Association of the United States Army here uses 3rd. The Killeen Daily Herald here uses 3rd on YouTube. I see that there was a move above and I don't consider it battling to get to the more common name. I will say that it would be a good idea to have a naming convention as long as it looked at both sides to get to the more commonly used. Otr500 (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Why didn't you mention what the unit calls itself: - Atfyfe (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Why do you think "3d" ever gets used? Is it just bizarre that 3d is common when talking about the 3d ACR? Here's a more reasonable explanation: the name of the unit is 3d ACR, but it is easy to mess that up or not realize the correct abbreviation for the unit name, so people (even in the military) commonly mistakenly put 3rd ACR. If 3rd ACR were correct, then what could possibly explain the prevalence of 3d ACR? In any case: see my post above checking the 3d ACR's website for their own statement on the correct abbreviation. - Atfyfe (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Reply: I didn't use the "official" name because it is obvious and self referenced. You stated "Is it just bizarre that 3d is common when talking about the 3d ACR?" I couldn't find references to show 3d as "common". There is always a reasoning why editors want to use the official name all over Wikipedia but that is not always the case. Your comment stated "commonly mistakenly put 3rd ACR" and that is a good reason for disambiguation. Also, editors are not suppose to be right or wrong in editing but use what is commonly referenced. Past reasoning has shown this rarely matters to some but:
Take the scientific name Latrodectus mactans. A scientist will know what Latrodectus mactans refers to but the average person knows what a Black Widow spider is. If someone has the common knowledge they can use "Southern black widow" (L. mactans), "Western Black Widow" (L. hesperus), or "Northern Black Widow" (L. variolus), though to most people even in those areas it is still just a Black Widow, yet the Wikipedia scientific community prefers the scientific name with a redirect. Maybe this is you so you will not understand but if you are just a layperson (scientifically) you probably incorrectly (by scientific standards) just say "Black Widow".
A general in the United States military is always addressed with the official rank as part of the name but Wikipedia uses just the name such as general Martin Dempsey. Failure of another military person to address the rank would be disrespectful of rank and a grave infraction. I edited an article Claus von Stauffenberg where there was confusion on his name. With research I found his "official" given and referenced name was Claus Philipp Maria, Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg. I was furious that the name was changed to the current title. I had to understand that it is alright on Wikipedia, and many times better, if the common name is used. What "I found" was that "3rd" is more common (I referenced this) than "3d" (or 2d etc.) in the US and below it is stated it is standard in MILMOS. If you can show where the "official" name is also more common I will reverse my "support". Otr500 (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support both "3rd" for the consistency and commonality, and (United States), which is standard pre-emptive disambiguation in MILMOS. Peacemaker67

(send... over) 03:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. "3rd" and "3d" seem to be pretty much interchangeable in American English, so for consistency's sake the world standard 3rd is better. And it does need a disambiguator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. - Atfyfe (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I do want to mention: I think it is nonsense that this vote is conflating two issues. Clearly (United States) should be added to the title. I think the '3rd <-> 3d' issue is completely separate. The fact that one controversial, unclear issue is being voted on with a vote about a clear, obvious issue is wrongheaded and mistaken. Not that I think I would win that vote either, but it is b.s. to conflate these two completely different issues. - Atfyfe (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Reply: (PLEASE! use the asterisks for "support" or "oppose" (don't support etc...) indications. I tend to agree that (United States) would be a good thing because a look at 3rd Regiment leads to a disambiguation page. Note: 1)- Articles with "United States" are redirected, 2)-Active article titles commonly use 3rd and, 3)- The title of the RM is 3d Cavalry Regiment → 3rd Cavalry Regiment (United States) so I do not understand the comment "...this vote is conflating two issues.". I have not been able to look at other articles, any naming convention, or "MILMOS" but I still support the more common name, over any convention that uselessly conflicts, or an "official" name that is not common. A Wikipedia search of 3d Regiment returns one article 3d Cavalry Regiment with a "d" and many with "rd". A Wikipedia search of 3rd Cavalry includes this article and 14 others that use "rd".
Concerning using "United States" there are more than I listed:
  1. 3rd Marine Regiment (United States)
  2. 3rd Infantry Division (United States)
  3. 133rd Infantry Regiment (United States)
  4. 1st Infantry Division (United States)
  5. 1st Battalion, 258th Field Artillery (United States)
  6. 30th Infantry Regiment (United States)
  7. 18th Infantry Regiment (United States)
  8. 19th Infantry Regiment (United States)
  9. 116th Infantry Regiment (United States)
  10. 25th Infantry Division (United States)
  11. 52nd Infantry Regiment (United States)
I support 3d Cavalry Regiment → 3rd Cavalry Regiment (United States) *more* (if this passes consensus) because it defines and disambiguate's other countries, or 3d Cavalry Regiment → 3rd Cavalry Regiment *less*. The Regiment "official" name with 3d would only get my support if it is more common and I can't show that. I do not support adding (United States) to all articles because some like 101st Airborne Division (as well as others) are notable under that title. Otr500 (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 3[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page to 3rd Cavalry Regiment (United States), per the discussion below and evidence of common usage. Dekimasuよ! 22:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

3d Cavalry Regiment (United States)3rd Cavalry Regiment (United States) – Starting a new discussion per the admin in the last requested move, who sensibly decided that there was consensus to use national disambiguation, but not on what form of ordinal to use. Apparently, the official usage for this regiment, if not a larger class of U.S. Army units, is to use the non-standard ordinal "3d". However, it's been documented abundantly above that this isn't followed consistently within the Army, there are more Google Books results for the standard than the nonstandard ordinal (even a book about the unit with "3rd" in its title), and we don't follow official usage to a slavish extent. So, I think we should use the normal English ordinal, in the interest of using good style as much as because it's the commonly used name—newspapers and published books not by the Army use standard numerals. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 07:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)innotata 04:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC) Support move: There is consensus to follow the common name "if" there is no clear reason to deviate and just the use of the "official" name is not reason enough as ordinal numbers (MOS:ORDINAL) has already established 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles, headings, and sections " ...recognizable name or description of the topic that is natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with the titles of related articles ". Title consistency; United States Army#Regular combat maneuver organizations shows the only odd ball is 3d. Wikipedia-wide see: Air Defense Artillery Branch (United States)#History that includes 18 names, "Major commands" section has 5 (the exception is 263d Army Air & Missile Defense Command that has not been created), "Brigade size units" section has 8 more, with even more in the "Battalions" section. This direction is reflected across Wikipedia (see "Requested move 2014" above for more listed) concerning military number designations. Consistency with content within an article produces the fact that examples of "1st, "2nd" "3rd" are VERY consistent over 2d or 3d in this article as well as prevalent on the vast majority of like articles. Otr500 (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Object The army doesn't have 101 infantry divisions despite the fact that there is a 101st Infantry Division. These numbers are no countings of the units, they are numbers assigned to the units because of their pragmatic usefulness at the time the units were created. The number of units of a type change radically over time, but the unit name (including its number) remains the same as it was given when it was first created. Heck, when Seal Team Six was created they named it "six" merely to imply that they had six seal teams even though there was only one. So these numbers shouldn't be assigned by us as-if they were counts of the units, the numbers are parts of the names of the units. The same goes for the abbreviations. The 3d cavalry carries on the name, symbolism, and traditions of a unit dating back to their formation. Their number and how they spell it is a part of that legacy. In fact, when the army re-designated the unit the "3d cavalry regiment" from its older name the "3d armored cavalry regiment" it had the chance to update the unit's name from 3d to 3rd but choose not to. Why don't we standardize the spelling of Mark across Wikipedia from both "Mark" and "Marc" to just one or the other just for standardization's sake, regardless of what people call themselves or their birth certificates state (in this case the unit designation/formation orders). If you re-name this article you are adding to the misrepresentation of this unit name base on common usage, ignoring the fact that many military units retain archaic spellings and abbrivations as a part of their names because the units are older than then the 30-50 years of life that Wikipedia editors have lived. The units have old spellings because they are old. And no the 3d cavalry is not the only unit like this, the 3d infantry regiment (the oldest active duty regiment in the US Army) also uses the traditional 3d rather than 3rd. But whatever, you do what y'all want. Clearly we need a wikipedia wide policy on this, I am sick of fighting the battle over and over every few years on different unit discussion pages. My vote is against, you see why. I will not comment on these votes again. - Atfyfe (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen all of this demonstrated to be true. Numbering certainly isn't meaningless; in the early 19th century when these units were formed, usage was all over the place (probably leaning toward Third and 3rd). And even considering what's official, look at our best sources on military topics, history books not published by the military, and you'll find they pretty much universally use normal ordinals. Then there's everything else stated above. —innotata 01:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Object Regular ordinals are irrelevant, since the official title[1] of the organization is 3d[2] (see, specifically, §2-3, where 2d and 3d are the listed, proper, and official designations, not just for this unit). Is the Wikipedia entry for the band The Monkees named back to its normal spelling? No, because the name of the band is spelled with two "e"'s. The Regiment of Mounted Riflemen is now officially the 3d Cavalry Regiment, and renaming the Wiki page because a someone might get "confused" itself confuses the issue (or, worse, because some administrator has a personal vendetta against "non-standard" ordinals). Solving that problem is as simple as creating a redirect page for 3rd Cavalry->3d Cavalry, and possibly a statement in the opening paragraph about the use of the ordinal. Aramis1250 (talk) 05:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I will also point out that the Facebook page for the 3d CR is "3d Cavalry Regiment"[3], as well. It seems to me it would be more confusing for someone who sees the FB page, then comes here searching for more information to find that Wikipedia editors and admins think they know better than the actual, official source. Aramis1250 (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
You haven't addressed the fact that publications of the Army widely use normal ordinals, as do most historical sources, and pretty much everybody else writing about the unit. To use your analogy, if newspapers and music labels called the band "The Monkeys", we would, despite the official name. I have to doubt whether the Army centrally has decided to standardise on one set of ordinals rather than nonstandard ordinals simply being popular as shorthand; the sources from these units' earliest days say "3rd" or "Third". @SchreiberBike:, thoughts? —innotata 17:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Did you look at the references that I listed? One of which is Army Regulation 220-5, currently in effect, which lists "2d" and "3d"? Aramis1250 (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
And, straight from the Official Names[4] page: "We use English as we find it. Trying to improve the consistency of English may be a laudable thing (or not), but Wikipedia is not the place to do it." Stop trying to change the title of the article to fit some arbitrary and capricious notion of "correctness" when no such correctness exists in the language to begin with. Aramis1250 (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
There's a balance to be made between describing the world as it is, and using good style; newspapers using the AP Style Guide would never talk about the "3d Cavalry Regiment". That said, my requested move is based on "3rd" being more common in reliable sources, our basic way of deciding names. —innotata 02:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Neutral - Where the unit sometimes uses one form of the ordinal and sometimes another, I think we should standardize on the one which is most understandable to most people. In this case, the unit very consistently uses 3d to refer to itself. In fact, on the unit's website, they refer to other units as 3rd, but always to themselves as 3d; indicating that they've thought about the difference and they've chosen 3d. However, when I go to and do a Google search of how that site refers to the unit, I get 238 for 3rd and 69 for 3d, so from what I can tell, the US Army is indifferent to the unit's preference. Google Ngrams, looking at books in American English, favors 3d up until 1925 and 3rd since then. So we could show respect to the unit's preference, but since most of the rest of the world does not, it's just as good to refer to them as 3rd. SchreiberBike talk 23:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as the website, a number of editors in past discussions said that unit websites aren't that consistent, and if I recall right, their website formerly used "3rd". Also, early publications tend to use "Third", but they're pretty mixed. I doubt any units were established in the 19th century using one particular ordinal system, as some sources cited in the discussion seem to imply! Fair enough, though. With this one there definitely is more of a sign what official usage is. I still favour following the rest of the world. —innotata 02:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the move to 3rd. I note that in three move discussions now including this one, there have been only two arguments proposed in favour of 3d. Most commonly, it's claimed that we should simply follow the official name. This would be blatantly contrary to policy, but it's a very common fallacy which is the whole reason the official name essay was written. The other argument is based on the claim that 3d is the common name. This claim appears to be quite simply false, on the evidence provided above. Andrewa (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 3rd Cavalry Regiment (United States). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)