Talk:2nd New York Cavalry Regiment

2nd Regiment New York Volunteer Cavalry vs 2nd New York Volunteer Cavalry Regiment
From US records and a lot of state records and histories, I see "2nd Regiment [State] Volunteer [Artillery/Cavalry/Infantry]" as most common reference to Union Civil War units. Some editors say the latter, "2nd [State] Volunteer [Artillery/Cavalry/Infantry] Regiment", is most common (I disagree). Actually, A lot of states had "USV" on some belt buckles and badges, so another editor says "2nd Regiment [State] [United States/U.S.] Volunteer [Artillery/Cavalry/Infantry]". I think "2nd Regiment [State] Volunteer [Artillery/Cavalry/Infantry]" should be format. Have I missed this in a style guide?Hhfjbaker (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, in many primary sources 2nd Regiment [State] Volunteer [unit type] is common. However, secondary sources from the last 30 years generally refer to regiments as 2nd [State] [unit type], for example see and, , , . This issue was the subject of many discussions of the years and much time wasting moving back and forth (when so many regimental articles are stubs, this was quite a distraction) and last year a consensus was arrived at that 2nd [state] [unit type] [Regiment] was arrived at. Regiment was appended to distinguish unit sizes as some states had battalions with the same numbers as regiments (more a Confederate issue). On USCT units, the NARA  uses United States Colored Infantry, so that's how the prevailing usage was arrived at there. Because of redirects, anyone typing in a designation in either order will find the correct article so what matters is that there is consistency. Kges1901 (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)