Jump to content

User talk:Noclador: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 406: Line 406:
** You don't see a point in continuing? Totally get it. I checked out months ago. Wiki editing has passed the point of usefulness and enter the territory of being ridiculous a while ago. [[User:B.Velikov|B.Velikov]] ([[User talk:B.Velikov|talk]]) 12:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
** You don't see a point in continuing? Totally get it. I checked out months ago. Wiki editing has passed the point of usefulness and enter the territory of being ridiculous a while ago. [[User:B.Velikov|B.Velikov]] ([[User talk:B.Velikov|talk]]) 12:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
*** The problem is that uninvolved editors, who never added a word to any military article come in and delete weeks of work, because they don't get the content and just say "I don't get this, it must go". I should be voting at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Italian Army in 1974]], but if I did certain editors would just harass me. I created the two extra articles to complete the info about the 1975 reform - it's like a recipe: 1974 are the ingredients, 1975 is the recipe, and 1977 is the result... if they merge it all into one, no one can figure out what the structure before the reform was, or what the structure after the reform was... but since none of them has bothered to read, they voted for "merge". And certain editors will come in and harass me within 30min if I vote for keep and explain the reasons why. I had this harassment at four AfD's by the same editor in the last month, it's de-motivating and rude, no reason to add info to wikipedia if others come and destroy it without bothering to understand the content. [[User:Noclador|noclador]] ([[User talk:Noclador#top|talk]]) 13:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
*** The problem is that uninvolved editors, who never added a word to any military article come in and delete weeks of work, because they don't get the content and just say "I don't get this, it must go". I should be voting at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Italian Army in 1974]], but if I did certain editors would just harass me. I created the two extra articles to complete the info about the 1975 reform - it's like a recipe: 1974 are the ingredients, 1975 is the recipe, and 1977 is the result... if they merge it all into one, no one can figure out what the structure before the reform was, or what the structure after the reform was... but since none of them has bothered to read, they voted for "merge". And certain editors will come in and harass me within 30min if I vote for keep and explain the reasons why. I had this harassment at four AfD's by the same editor in the last month, it's de-motivating and rude, no reason to add info to wikipedia if others come and destroy it without bothering to understand the content. [[User:Noclador|noclador]] ([[User talk:Noclador#top|talk]]) 13:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
**** I totally get your point. Fram's actions were the last straw for me too, my eye-opening moment. When he stated that "I don't know anything about military matters and do not have even the slightest interest in them." and right after that went on with "These articles should be deleted, because they are not informative and noteworthy. I did not learn anything." I was fully convinced that, OK, now the other editors will see how he does not have a leg to stand on, how his arguments LITERALLY CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT. Not at all! And the support an editor completely uninformed and disinterested in military matters received for his position on military articles was from other editors equally uninformed and disinterested in military matters.

That's when things just went ridiculous. I am convinced that people, who roam wikipedia and just go and delete or call for the deletion of articles WITHOUT SPENDING A SINGLE SECOND in effort to improve the content, should receive a month-long editing ban, so they can take a serious thought about their conduct, because this is blatant disregard and disrespect of the time and efforts spent by other people in their work to improve Wikipedia as a whole. The other factor for me to drop the towel was Mztourist's nonsense how the Portuguese and Austrian militaries are completely non-noteworthy. This British jingoistic obsession of their self-importance is just boring. It has stopped being frustrating decades ago yet when someone brings it up, they are convinced it's a global conspiracy, fuelled by jealousy. I am pretty sure that close to (if not over) 50% of the military history articles on the English wiki are about English and British military history. We have articles ranging from some obscure completely unnoticeable units to probably articles about Lord Wellington's poodles. Of course I am speaking figuratively, but this is how things are.

This is an encyclopedia project. The building base of an encyclopedia is being comprehensive. When it is covering the militaries of NATO countries, it should cover all of them. When it is covering Warsaw Pact, it should cover all of them. I was gathering info on the Polish and Hungarian militaries during the Cold War two months ago. Then along comes Fram with his "Delete that, 'cause I don't care about it!" and the cherry on top is the self-centered Mztourist with his "Oh, yeah, absolutely delete it. I couldn't possibly be bothered with Austria and Portugal. Just leave the UK, the US and the Soviets... D'you what? Leave the French too. We like making fun of the Frogs. It is our favourite past time here." F*** that! [[User:B.Velikov|B.Velikov]] ([[User talk:B.Velikov|talk]]) 13:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:55, 30 November 2020

Structure of the Italian Air Force in 1989

Hi, Noclador! When you have some time, could you also make an article about the AMI in 1989? I am particularly curious about that, because an Italian TV series has actually instilled in me a passion for aviation. It was from that exact year, but our national tv broadcasted it in 1993 ~ 94 at the time when I was 8 or 9 and it made a huge impression on me (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foifxHVWM54). As you come from Italy I hope you would be able to come to that information easier. I have tried to compile it miself, without much luck. Greetings! B.Velikov (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A yes, Aquile. I was more a fan of the series that dealt with the army. As for the AMI in 1989... so far I have no definite source for the 1989 structure. And now with ever less time for wikipedia... don't know if/when I can do such an article. What I can recommend is this German wiki article, as it is detailed, good and well sourced: de:Geschichte der italienischen Luftstreitkräfte#Aeronautica Militare and below is the information I have as of now. noclador (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1st Air Region


56° Gruppo I.T. di Ca’ Tron (VE) 59° di Vittorio Veneto-Monte Pizzoc (TV)

7° Reparto I.T. di Vicenza 64° Bassano del Grappa-Monte Grappa (VI) 66° di Tonezza del Cimone-Monte Toraro (VI)

3rd Air Region

* Nuclear weapons capable unit.

Other units

ORBAT of 1st (UK) Division

Hi - Please could you look at the message below posted to my talk page. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,
I noticed that the wire diagram showing the ORBAT of 1(UK)Div on the page List of units and formations of the British Army 2019 is incorrect.
Structure of 1st (UK) Division under Army 2020 Refine (click image to enlarge)
There has been some re-jigging of units since the diagram was produced. 1R IRISH and 3PWRR have left 7th Inf Bde and 1 RIFLES and 6 RIFLES have joined it; this is correctly shown in the text on that page.
I don't know the position so far as the other brigades in the Div are concerned. The Div has also been augmented with several CS and CSS brigades in order to make it self-sustaining and deployable as a division. Again, these are listed in the text but the image does not show the changes.
Is it possible to notify whoever produced the diagram and ask them to amend it?
Conn
Mr Benn (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, comment. British Forces Cyprus is now under 1st UK Division?! Or is that incorrect. So many new changes. Need reliable sources.
Also based on your graphics, you eliminated 102 Log Brigade - it has not dibanded as yet. And Maybe a graph for Regional Command for 1st MP Brigade and the other brigade's sake? BlueD954 (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't regional brigades just some administrative commands now? noclador (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Regional Command. That controls 38 and 160 brigade. BlueD954 (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 11th Brigade commands British Forces Brunei [1] BlueD954 (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orbats - diagrams

Dear Noclador, May I ask: What programme do you use for creating this excellent organigrams? I have the need for creating similar ones and it would be a great support of you could tell me how to do so.

THank you, Best Regards

K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roessler50 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for the compliment. The whole work is done with photoshop. I started out with it back in 2006 and stayed with it. What kind of graphics you plan to do? I can send you some of the psd files if you let me know what armies interest you. cheers, noclador (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Italy#Template:WikiProject Italy

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Italy#Template:WikiProject Italy. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 19:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Thanks

For your involvement in the Italian Desert War articles, they have been distinctly improved and I've learnt a lot from your efforts. That site (issuu) with the IO histories is going to help a lot too. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith-264: You're welcome :-) and thank you for appreciating my work. The Italian Army's History Office has published incredible volumes about the army's histories and all the ones, which are out of print they put on Issuu. Be it the official history of the army aviation [2] or all the volumes of the official World War I history [3], which so far is 19 books with nearly 16,000 pages (1918 they are still scanning). As for North Africa - all 9 volumes are online since October:
  • Volume I Sidi el Barrani - Part One
  • Volume I Sidi el Barrani - Part Two
  • Volume II Tobruk - Part One
  • Volume II Tobruk - Part Two
  • Volume III El Alamein - Part One
  • Volume III EL Alamein - Part Two
  • Volume III EL Alamein - Part Three
  • Volume IV Enfidaville - Part One
  • Volume IV Enfidaville - Part Two
And there are English translations of these books by the Italian Army, which are now coming online two. For now you can find these two on Issuu:
My focus is on the army's regiments, for which I am writing articles now, but every time I find information that should go into other articles I will add that info. noclador (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks [4] Here's a translation of the Austro-Humgarian OH just in case you need it. Iv'e got links to the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand OHs too if you need them. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[5] N Africa maps here too. Keith-264 (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tobruk

@Keith-264: Interesting! I will look at the Austrian stuff. I started the article British capture of Tobruk, because that battle needs its own article. Going for dinner now, so will add more stuff/details later. If you feel like working on the article already, please go ahead. cheers, noclador (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nafziger

[6] has orders of battle for lots of wars. Keith-264 (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot of Orbat's! Will take an afternoon to look at them :-) noclador (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In appreciation

 The WikiChevrons 
It is with great pleasure that I award you your fifth Wikichevrons. These are for your continuing work on military topics, and specifically for your great work on currently serving Italian formations. I hope that there are many more to come. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thank you! :-) An unexpected but wonderful appreciation of my work. I will be doing most of the Italian army units active since 1945 over the coming weeks... some 300 in all. Thank you again for your kind words and the Wikichevrons! :-) noclador (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine Lives!!

I have just sent this message to Peacemaker67:
Half the Russian justifications for intervening in Ukraine reference the far-right groups that fought with the Germans. You will note that the WP:SIGNPOST reports now a campaign by the Ukr Govt to add data to Wikipedia. Things are going to hot up on those pages. I know you've done excellently with similar fraught pages regarding the Balkans; can you sweep through, at least, the Ukrainian pages? If you need help, please ask, especially Noclador, who will rally to the cause, Nick-D, and I.. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll have a look. I watchlist the Ukrainian Waffen-SS division and Ukrainian collaboration with Nazi Germany already. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have a bunch of Euromaidan related pages on my Watchlist. Will keep an eye out. Knowing the Ukrainian government... this is likely a bunch of hot air and not much will happen. noclador (talk) 08:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't care less about how much the Ukrainians do. I'm more worried about the Internet Research Agency#Organized anti-Ukrainian campaign or its affiliates, who will now start swarming all over En-wiki, no doubt.. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists and most especially the Ukrainian Insurgent Army pages that I believe may be most under threat. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Italian resistance movement navbox (draft)

Greetings - I noticed you are listed as a participant in the Italian military history task force, I'm leaving a message for all participants. I have drafted 3 versions of a navbox covering the Italian resistance 1943-45 which can be seen here (in my sandbox). If you have time, your comments or suggestions on style, content etc, would be welcomed; I've created a section on my talk page. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of United States divisions during World War II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terry de la Mesa Allen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ORBATs

I noticed that you use photoshop for your ORBAT diagrams; could you possibly send me a few British ORBAT .psd files, so I could attempt my own? Thanks! SmartyPants22 (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, which Orbats you want? and to send you the files I will need your email address. Please use the "Email this user" link in Wikipedia's menu on the left to send me your email address and the kind of files you want. Cheers, noclador (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noclador, I have sent you an email. SmartyPants22 (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

50th Armored Division

Do you realise who created this article in the first place? How carefully I've tried to piece together the scraps on how the division was organised? I do *NOT* appreciate you coming in with some unsourced listing you have dug up from whereever, and then trying to falsify the references by saying the inf/cav/armor regimental lineages provide references for which battalions go in which brigades!! Keep your false unsourced obsession with 1989 orders of battle OFF the National Guard divisional pages!! REFERENCE THEM PROPERLY, ONLY AS FAR AS THE SOURCES CAN TAKE YOU!! Otherwise I will remove every listing from every NG division. Keep your half-sourced guesses on how NATO armies were organised in 1989 on your own listings pages!! Buckshot06 (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning re WP:V

G'day Noclador, as detailed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#US Army and National Guard Army of Excellence divisions in 1989, I have concluded that you have been failing to comply with verification, a core content policy of WP, on US ORBAT articles. This is extremely disappointing behavior from an experienced editor who has made many great contributions to WP over many years. I do, however, see that after my comments on Talk:50th Armored Division (United States)#FALSE references you are apparently attempting to do better at 50th Armored Division, per this edit, and at this stage am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are now fully citing all information you are adding to US ORBATs, in particular camp locations, brigade allocations and equipment allocations. I strongly suggest you immediately go back and fully cite all the information you have been adding to US ORBAT articles which has been challenged by Buckshot06, and continue do so into the future. If this doesn't happen, I will not hesitate to block you without further warning for refusing to comply with WP:V, and will support a TBAN on all US ORBAT articles at ANI. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67 I have been adding sources all day yesterday. But I am not involved anymore. After seeing for what reason my sourcing at 7th Infantry Division was reverted, I am exiting the topic. It is not worth my time to spend days digging up extra sources, then getting all reverted, because of missing page numbers in a 33 page document. noclador (talk) 09:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PAGENUM is a referencing standard that we should follow on this site. I have already offered you my collaboration privately and directly to avoid this entire problem, by taking the entire thing off-wiki, which then you could cite back in here. I urge you to give that offer your favourable attention. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a good idea for you to stay away from this topic, Noclador. Further issues with sloppy citations would probably have ended up with a block and a TBAN. My intervention was never about you failing to provide page numbers, on the two articles I examined you were citing material that clearly wasn't supported by the citations. I have no doubt that the consensus at ANI would have been the same. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs

Please do not remove AFD tags from articles. If you disagree with the nomination, please make your case at the related discussion. Primefac (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I revert these abusive deletion request as that user has simple nominated for deletion every single article in the Category:Structures of military commands and formations in 1989. Wanton destruction of content, because he doesn't like the chose year. noclador (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, so make your point at the deletion discussion. If it's an inappropriate nomination then it will be closed as such. Primefac (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's vandalism. This user has not even once in his life contributed to the WikiProject Military history and now comes in and wants to destroy the work of dozens of editors over a decade. noclador (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, so make your point at the deletion discussion. There's nothing saying only MILHIST editors are allowed to edit or otherwise deal with MILHIST-related topics. Primefac (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone can edit - but this user calls for massive destruction. noclador (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And if other editors hold your point of view, the pages will be kept. An AFD is not an automatic deletion. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Portuguese Armed Forces order of battle. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.  

Specifically, comments like "Abusive deletion requests. Snowball close. Shameful and insulting request by an editor, who has never contributed to the WikiProject Military history to destroy content. " are completely inappropriate. It's fine to strongly disagree with the nominations, but do so on the merits. If you really think there's a behavioral issue with the nominator, then raise the issue with them on their talk page, or failing that, at an appropriate notice board.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did the Spaniards name all their army division after girls' hair colours?

Seems a very strange thing to do!! I've only come across the nicknames for the 1st and 5th so far, so am I going to discover the 2nd Mechanised Division "Blonde," for example? 3rd Armoured Division "Redhead"? Maybe their airborne brigade rejoices under the nickname "Platinum?" Buckshot06 (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buckshot06 Have you tried to follow the wikilink Battle of Brunete??? noclador (talk) 11:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course I saw the link. I was *joking*!! Buckshot06 (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But, in all seriousness, I carefully examined the Spanish practice on these things. They use cardinals (No. 1); not ordinals (1st), which is why I carefully translated the division as Armoured Division No. 1 'Brunete', not 1st Armoured Division. Do me a favour and stop changing it back!! Buckshot06 (talk) 11:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I took the naming from the source I work with. That source doesn't use the no. 1 (or similar) even once. If you're sure that the Spanish Army uses the: Division xx "name" no. yy - format, then I will use it too. noclador (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Btw. as you're a sources fan: check these two out:

noclador (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How closely did you read Mogaburo López? Invariably he uses "DAC 1 Brunete" etc, rather than a ordinal form. But to answer your question it is the standard form for Spanish formations - I first saw reading 'Jane's Military Review,' their 1986 edition, which reference I added an hour or two ago at the bottom of the page, about the to-be-formed five divisions, and then, at about the age of 12, I was surprised to see they used 'Armoured Division No. 1' instead of 1st Armoured Division. Thomas and Volstad is irritatingly unclear on it, but see for another example the Spanish wikipedia which clearly uses "No. 1" - es:División_Mecanizada_«Brunete»_n.º_1 - rather than "1st." Buckshot06 (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just somewhat annoyed because I carefully took an exact list of all the divisions, brigades, regiments, and battalions, from that JMR article of c.1986, on school refill paper - it was a full order of battle - kept them for over 25 years (more like 30 actually), and then it appears I've thrown them out, just when I want to work on the Spanish Army!! Buckshot06 (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I checked the external links under es:División_Mecanizada_«Brunete»_n.º_1, the Spanish ministry of defense uses cardinals. So you are correct. Another question. I am a bit confused by the higher command structure of the Spanish Army in 1990. The question is: were the divisions permanently assigned to the military regions or under the General Staff in peacetime? The confusion stems from the tables on pages 76-81: the divisions are seemingly always assigned to a military regions, however the independent brigades and various commands have a 2-star command abbreviated "RG" between them and the military regions. I.e. the BRILAT and BRIPAC, the MALEG, MACTAE, MACA, MAAA, etc are all assigned to "RG", which seems to be a command that is national. If it was a national command, then it was not assigned to any of the regions, but to the CGE... which makes me wonder if the divisions were assigned to the CGE too. Also: any idea what RG stands for? noclador (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Next problem: the honor names for the battalions were introduced in spring 1991. However as these honor names are the key to understand which battalion was moved to which regiment subsequently I would like to leave them in the article. Would a note at the beginning be sufficient or do we need to take all the battalion honor names out? noclador (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Next question: Do we need to write the regiments like: Mechanized Infantry Regiment No. 6 "Saboya"???
Looking at Mogaburo López I was confused myself about the divisional higher direction arrangements. My guess is that like for the British Army, military regions might do local administration, which would change upon Transition To War, upon which command would revert to the General Staff preparatory to either a higher command for the whole line of the Pyrenees, both IV and V, being created, or, b, being handed over to SACEUR. Either way ordinary local administration would often run through the MRs, I think.
Mogaburo López leaves some absolutely critical abbreviations out of the list at the back - DAC is not there, though it's clear from other sources. RG is also missing. My memory is that RG is "Reserve Generale" or however the Spaniards would render it. It's the General Staff's pool of centrally held, (initially) non-assigned forces. Again local administration done by the military regions, but at the General Staff's beck and call..
I would pipelink the names, linking the best, most up to date, more comprehensible names, including honor names, and then doing the standard|name at the time ]] on the right hand side of the pipelink.
Yes, that follows WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME: "Names should generally follow the stylistic conventions used by the service or country of origin. For example, while US and British usage has spelled-out numerals for army-level formations and Roman numerals for corps, editors writing about different countries should follow those countries' normal usages; thus, "3. Panzer Armee" becomes "3rd Panzer Army", and "18-ya Armiya" becomes "18th Army"." Thus although it looks weird to us, we write all the regiments & battalions as Mech Inf Regt No. 6, not 6th MIR. I would not want Spanish editors turning 1st Battalion, Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment into Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment Battalion No. 1; we should extend them the same courtesy. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Buckshot06

  • I will be away for a few hours. I did finish entering the data for the I and II military regions. If you have the time to fix the regimental names - go for it. If not - I will do it later in the evening. But one question:
  1. Mechanized Infantry Regiment "Saboya" No. 6
  2. Mechanized Infantry Regiment No. 6 "Saboya"
which is the correct one? Mogaburo López uses the first version. Note: Spanish Army website and Spanish government website use: División de Montaña «Navarra» número 5 and División Acorazada «Brunete» número 1. So I will use this format too.
  • pipelink??? what do you mean?
  • So all units listed as being Military Regione -> RG -> unit, we will put under the military region? If that is ok with you I will add the commands next.
  • Should we rename the Category:Structures of military commands and formations in 1989? "Category:Military organizations at the end of Cold War"??

cheers noclador (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pipelinks are these things [[1st (United Kingdom) Division|1st British Armoured Division]] so you can show different text to the actual link. Yes we should rename the category - should use 'military units and formations' not 'commands and formations' but let me think about the actual exact wording. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RG? Take a look here -https://web.archive.org/web/20131113230457/http://www.ejercito.mde.es/unidades/Burgos/fp_cg/Historial/BREVE_HISTORIAL_DE_FUP.pdf first page - 'General Reservada.' Yes put them under the MRs. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Buckshot06 You can have a look at the Structure of the Spanish Army in 1989 now. It's complete. As far as I can tell the Paratroopers and Airmobile brigades were assigned to the General Reserve of the General Staff. If you think it is ok like this, I will update the graphic tomorrow and add map with the main unit locations. noclador (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Army in 1940s

We've got quite a bit of information available on the order of battle during World War II - the military region articles, Lopez, etc. Do you want to do a summary for 1944 say, following Lopez? Or the 1965 reorganisation? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

can do later. Right now I have finished the Structure of the Spanish Army in 1990 article and am updating the Structure of the Spanish Army, as the Spanish Army is undertaking a new reform right now. See here and here. noclador (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Excellent work. BlueD954 (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you BlueD954. The compliment is much appreciated. :-) noclador (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at administrator's noticeboard

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The topic is WP:ANI#Revenge deletion. Fram (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mztourist (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11th Signal Brigade move

Hi, your view wrt [7]

User User:SmartyPants22 keep reverting my edit[s] to Future of the British Army stating that 11th Signal Brigade and Headquarters West Midlands has moved to 3rd (United Kingdom) Division from 6th (United Kingdom) Division despite my references: https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/formations-divisions-brigades/3rd-united-kingdom-division/hq-11th-signal-and-west-midlands-brigade/ and the verified tweet https://twitter.com/3rdUKDivision/status/1317029994649014273 . He only preserves the changes to the British Army as of July/August 2019 on that page. Clearly 11th Signal Brigade has moved. He has reverted my edit stating the reassignment of 11th Signal without any statement, only 'title is better how it was previously'. Why? It is 19 October 2020 not July/August 2019. As per the verified account tweet and the Army website, 11th Signal has clearly reassigned. Why can this not be reflected on a page named Future of the British Army? Why the reverts?

Do you support that user or me?

BlueD954 (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlueD954 I would not update Future of the British Army anymore. To me it seems this is now a historical topic and could be deleted in favour of List of units and formations of the British Army 2020 (which needs a better title). If you still feel a need for me to have a look at Future of the British Army please ping me. noclador (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Future of the British Army was titled as Army 2020 Refine but someone renamed it. I agree with you on the renaming of List of units and formations of the British Army 2020 which is named as 'Organisation of Forces' on Template:British Army navbox BlueD954 (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BlueD954 should we request to move List of units and formations of the British Army 2020 to British Army organisation of forces? I find that title much better, but would not move directly, instead have other editors voice their support first. noclador (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the title in the info box. You do the re-naming because I dislike SmartyPants22 who reverts my rational edits. BlueD954 (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi you two. Under WP:List editors have a much greater chance of having list articles retained in a deletion debate than with other titles. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noclador You make the move request as mentioned. BlueD954 (talk) 12:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlueD954 do you not realise why SmartyPants22 may be doing this? There is a *single* specific source that lists the British Army org as of that date, and if you introduce new data, you invalidate that source, with respect to the rest of the listings. You would have to make a specific mention in the intro text, something like, 'all this data is dated [XX date] 2019, except for YY Regiment, which is dated [ZZ date] 2020..' Buckshot06 (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't read my above. END OF STORY as you treat your good friend J-Man. BlueD954 (talk) 07:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noclador Let's go back to other stuff.BlueD954 (talk) 07:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Structure of the Austrian Armed Forces in 1989, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 10th Panzer Division.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scroll gallery has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Terasail[Talk] 22:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afds

You would be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Military. BlueD954 (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Structure of the Danish Armed Forces in 1989 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Structure of the Danish Armed Forces in 1989 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Danish Armed Forces in 1989 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Vielen Dank für Ihre Beiträge zur Verbreitung der Wahrheit, insbesondere im Berg-Karabach-Krieg Ibrahimsharifov3 (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Structure of the Italian Army in 1974 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Structure of the Italian Army in 1974 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Italian Army in 1974 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Fram (talk) 11:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noclador, I said, at the AFD, that I thought it was unfortunate you weren't getting more help making your articles match the kinds of articles other wikipedia contributors think we should carry. Do you want help with that?
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Noclador/sandbox/British Army 2020 Refine

Is there any particular problem if I make some edits in this sandbox of yours? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can. I also did allow this to user:BlueD954. Not gonna do much work here anymore. noclador (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't see a point in continuing? Totally get it. I checked out months ago. Wiki editing has passed the point of usefulness and enter the territory of being ridiculous a while ago. B.Velikov (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is that uninvolved editors, who never added a word to any military article come in and delete weeks of work, because they don't get the content and just say "I don't get this, it must go". I should be voting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of the Italian Army in 1974, but if I did certain editors would just harass me. I created the two extra articles to complete the info about the 1975 reform - it's like a recipe: 1974 are the ingredients, 1975 is the recipe, and 1977 is the result... if they merge it all into one, no one can figure out what the structure before the reform was, or what the structure after the reform was... but since none of them has bothered to read, they voted for "merge". And certain editors will come in and harass me within 30min if I vote for keep and explain the reasons why. I had this harassment at four AfD's by the same editor in the last month, it's de-motivating and rude, no reason to add info to wikipedia if others come and destroy it without bothering to understand the content. noclador (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I totally get your point. Fram's actions were the last straw for me too, my eye-opening moment. When he stated that "I don't know anything about military matters and do not have even the slightest interest in them." and right after that went on with "These articles should be deleted, because they are not informative and noteworthy. I did not learn anything." I was fully convinced that, OK, now the other editors will see how he does not have a leg to stand on, how his arguments LITERALLY CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT. Not at all! And the support an editor completely uninformed and disinterested in military matters received for his position on military articles was from other editors equally uninformed and disinterested in military matters.

That's when things just went ridiculous. I am convinced that people, who roam wikipedia and just go and delete or call for the deletion of articles WITHOUT SPENDING A SINGLE SECOND in effort to improve the content, should receive a month-long editing ban, so they can take a serious thought about their conduct, because this is blatant disregard and disrespect of the time and efforts spent by other people in their work to improve Wikipedia as a whole. The other factor for me to drop the towel was Mztourist's nonsense how the Portuguese and Austrian militaries are completely non-noteworthy. This British jingoistic obsession of their self-importance is just boring. It has stopped being frustrating decades ago yet when someone brings it up, they are convinced it's a global conspiracy, fuelled by jealousy. I am pretty sure that close to (if not over) 50% of the military history articles on the English wiki are about English and British military history. We have articles ranging from some obscure completely unnoticeable units to probably articles about Lord Wellington's poodles. Of course I am speaking figuratively, but this is how things are.

This is an encyclopedia project. The building base of an encyclopedia is being comprehensive. When it is covering the militaries of NATO countries, it should cover all of them. When it is covering Warsaw Pact, it should cover all of them. I was gathering info on the Polish and Hungarian militaries during the Cold War two months ago. Then along comes Fram with his "Delete that, 'cause I don't care about it!" and the cherry on top is the self-centered Mztourist with his "Oh, yeah, absolutely delete it. I couldn't possibly be bothered with Austria and Portugal. Just leave the UK, the US and the Soviets... D'you what? Leave the French too. We like making fun of the Frogs. It is our favourite past time here." F*** that! B.Velikov (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Noclador&oldid=991518048"