Talk:21st Panzer Brigade (Bundeswehr)

File:StKp PzBrig21.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:StKp PzBrig21.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:StKp PzBrig21.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Current structure

I changed the section with the current structure of the brigade to the format used on the main article Structure of the German Army. Now all the army's articles, from main page to German divisions and German brigades use the same format. There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Army structures to come up with a set of rules,... but it's going nowhere so far. noclador (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but that's just conforming it to another structure that you created yourself. I'm all for structure in principle, but what you're doing is changing the nomenclature of units without sourcing the change, changing some of the terminology to American spelling in contravention of WP:ENGVAR and using unmilitary terms like "Current structure" instead of "organisation". On what authoritative sources are all these changes being based? Bermicourt (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I have now a choice: argue with you about this or continue with the yearly update of the 50+ military structures that I have expanded or created over time. Besides updating the military structure I am giving all of them a similar style this time to make it easier to compare various military's structures. That's 100s of hours of work. You insist that the names must not be changed (without a source confirming your POV) and demand I bring sources for every change. What source says your POV is the correct one? Also you keep reverting to an erroneous and outdated listing of units: i.e. missing the 921st Rifles Battalion (Jägerbataillon 921), having the wrong type of Leopard 2 at the 203rd Tank Battalion, and also a mistranslation: "Infantry Battalion (Jägerbataillon 1)". If you insist to have "Panzer" in the English name, then please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Army structures and argue for it, but please don't revert and hinder editors, who do needed updates, expansions and corrections of military structures. Best regards noclador (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

PS: just to give you an idea how chaotic the military units use native terms now: the flow text of this article uses 21st Panzer Brigade, 21st Armoured Brigade, Panzerlehrbrigade 9, 1st Armoured Division, 3rd Armoured Division, 7th Armoured Division,... which if you're choice of style would be used should all be replaced by "Panzer" (which is actually fine with me as a German, but please someone go to WikiProject Military history and create a style guide so that I don't have to argue about the style). noclador (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with what you're saying, but you are starting to engage in an edit war on the article page and that will only lead to a ban. Please follow WP:BRD and revert your last edit; then let's discuss what the sensible way ahead is here. I took the salute with the brigade commander of another Bundeswehr brigade at a joint parade, so I am familiar with this subject area and have some thoughts that may help. Bermicourt (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I now wrote a suggestion for a style guide at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Style guide proposal taking into account the discussion here. We need a clear style guide. My favorite military structure article from the style is Structure of the Italian Army, which doesn't translate Italian unique names (i.e. Alpini, Bersaglieri, etc) and doesn't use the native names at all, except for all the honorific titles (i.e. 4th Tank Regiment, but Regiment "Cavalleggeri Guide" (19th)). It would be good to continue the discussion there so others can join in and we come up with a set of guidelines to follow. noclador (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

What we need are authoritative sources. What does NATO, for example, call these units. I used to have a Bundeswehr/NATO lexicon - I'll see if I've still got it, but that's the sort of publication we need to use as the basis. However, the terms I use are based on British Army terminology which is similar, but not identical, to US terminology. However, as Germany is in Europe, there is an argument for using British/Irish English which is an official language, rather than American English. And I'd be grateful if you'd revert your last edit and then perhaps we could agree some joint changes. Bermicourt (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I have a feeling you are confused about what you want. At 21st Panzer Brigade you say I should use "Panzer" and not "Tank", I do as you wish, then you demand I revert your wish, and then you go over to Panzerlehrbrigade 9 and revert the use of "Panzer" to "Tank" and "Armoured". As for the use of Instruction Brigade. Unless we have an authoritative source naming this brigade, then Instruction comes closest to the German "Lehr", which means teach / instruct. Demonstration is equivalent to "Vorführ". For me personally it would be best to leave it as Panzerlehrbrigade... but then no English speaker gets it. noclador (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)