Talk:Army 2020

Military history: National / British / European Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 12 May 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to Army 2020 British Army reorganization. The result of the discussion was not moved.

We must be careful[edit]

That this covers information only Army 2020 not Army 2020 Refine.

BlueD954 (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For sure; the whole page also needs a bit of a clean up SmartyPants22 (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

CLOSED

Reject merging of article(s) as per No Consensus. Dormskirk or SmartyPants22 or other interested editor could consider either a BOLD merge or an AfD action. Non-Administrative closure-- GenQuest ^"scribble" 13:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

British Army Structure In 2010 into Army 2020; dated: October 2020. Proposer's Rationale: This massive orbat uses a majority of archive sources which may not exactly point to 2010. Army 2020 was formed up in 2013 not 2010. The article was formerly titled ' British Army Structure Before Army 2020' but why was 2010 chosen even though a SDSR was produced and not mentioned at all in the merger. More importantly, is this article under WP:GNG or WP:ARTN? At best we merge it with a well formed up article or page Army 2020 under the section 'background' with less on orbat or more on specific units and or regiments. Discuss here. BlueD954 (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the same reasons as nominator. Also it seems to have been created and substantially expanded by a blocked user. Dormskirk (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Personally, I don't really see the point of having keeping this ORBAT. What was so special about 2010 that warrants it's own ORBAT? Why not 2009 or 2011? Therefore, I think that a merger should not happen, but instead the page should be just deleted. SmartyPants22 (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to the British Army Structure In 2010? Yes, it was formed as British Army Structure Before Army 2020. I made a WP:PROD, it was curtly removed without improving the page. I welcome you or others to make a AfD for it. BlueD954 (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2020)

Support Same as nominator.Leahjstaples1234 (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC) Confirmed sock of BlueD954. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Aielen85 (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Confirmed sock of BlueD954. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I have reopened this discussion due to sockpuppetry by the nominator. Please add new comments below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)}}[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger[edit]

@BlueD954 (talk · contribs) if somebody wants to merge the above mentioned article into this one, then it needs an awful lot of work, as the 2010 structure has a stupid amount of mistakes; plus it's hardly referenced and the sources that it does cite don't even support what's written. SmartyPants22 (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why there is an article for 2010... was there something special about that particular year? We can't ask the creator: J-Man, becuase he's been excommunicated. The 2020 page is 45kB and the 2010 page is 115kB, meaning a merge could end up with a really big page, unless there is a lot of duplication or other content that can be cut, or otherwise split-off another way. Anyway, if someone, anyone, wants to just go ahead and merge the two pages, and they can do it competently, then they should just go for it, instead of waiting for a merge consensus. JMHO - wolf 04:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, I'll try and get around to it within the coming weeks, and it will take a while, as it's packed full or blatantly obvious errors. –SmartyPants22 (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, just as a follow up, is a merge still on the table? The merge tag is still on British Army Structure In 2010, but not this page. Pinging SmartyPants22 and Dormskirk as parties who were in support. Also note that the 2010 creator, J-Man11, is back and should involved, and on a final note, User:BlueD954, (who had used other socks above) has been infini-banned as he himself was a sock of User:Jeneral28, so all of his posts here jenerally don't count (and could even be struck). Since this proposal, there has been some work done on the 2010 page, but it remains as is for the most part. (also pinging Buckshot06. Cheers all - wolf 15:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that we do not need a proliferation of orbats at various dates. I would therefore be content to delete British Army Structure In 2010 completely. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: I was planning on completing this merger; I was first re-writing it in my sandbox (I did 3rd Div as well, but my electricty tripped before I saved it :/) and them was going to move it over. To be completely honest, I'm not going to be very active on Wikipedia for the next few months, and so probably won't finish it. It's probably best to to just redirect the page to Army 2020 so we can retain the page history, and then it can be completed in the future. Best wishes – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 15:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it a huge page, (currently 115KB), perhaps J-Man11 would like to move it one of his sandboxes, instead of having lost to deletion or a merge...? - wolf 16:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 May 2021[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 04:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Army 2020 → Army 2020 British Army reorganization – the existing name is too non-informative, too nebulous and too generic. the name of the entry should offer some idea of its actual topic The existing name, "Army 2020," does not convey any such meaning. -Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 21:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Common name. Doesn't need disambiguation. Many article titles on Wikipedia do not convey any real information about the content; no reason this one should be singled out. And should be "reorganisation" in any case, as is standard for British English topics. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't see any fault with the current name; Army 2020 is the name of the reorganisation, and so should remain per WP:COMMONNAME. I fail to take this seriously, considering you haven't even used British English in the proposed name. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 11:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.