User talk:Noclador

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

Danish Army OrBat chart[edit]

Hi, Noclador! I see you have updated the Danish Army chart. There are some things, that need to be taken into account about the Army's current structure.

  • until 2013 the Army, the Navy and the Air Force each had their own Operational Command: the Army had its Hærens Operative Kommando (HOK). Then the three merged into the Joint Services Defence Command (Værnsfælles Forsvarskommando (VFK)). Within it an Army Staff was formed (Hærstaben) with the responsibilities for army units training and readiness. So the two-star staff on top of the chart should be Army Staff, not Army Command. The ruling Danish coalition is actually in talks right now to reverse the merger and reestablish the separate Army, Navy and Air Force Operational Commands in 2018.
  • since 2015 are the Jægerkorpset and the Frømandskorpset no longer integral parts of the Army and respectively the Navy, but part of the Specialoperationskommandoen (SOKOM), which is a two-star command, equal in status to the Army, Navy and Air Force. So the Jægerkorpset does not fit in that chart any more.
  • The three Total Defence Regions (Totalforsvarsregioner (TFR)) are part of the Homeguard, not the Army and in 2016 they have been reduced into two Land Regions (Landsdelsregion Øst og Vest) with the purpose to reduce 93 Homeguard positions.[1]
  • As for the two schools on the chart - the Army Officer School and the Army Sergeant School are part of the Defence Academy, which is directly subordinated to the Defence Ministry.(Hertil kommer Hærens Sergentskole i Varde og Hærens Officersskole i København, som sorterer under Forsvarsakademiet.[2])
  • If you want, you can add the Danish Division, the 1st and 2nd their explanatory names to the diagram - they are official:
    • Danske Division - Hærens Taktiske Stab
    • 1. Brigade - Hærens Internationale Center
    • 2. Brigade - Hærens Kampcenter

Actually you can just take a look at the Danish Army article on the German Wikipedia. I just edited it. Greetings!B.Velikov (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the excellent information. I already updated the chart of the Danish Army. If you have any other army/unit you wish to have updated, please let me know. The amount of info and details in your post made updating the chart wonderfully easy. Thank you! noclador (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Ukrainian Airmobile Forces structure[edit]

Hi! Thanks for your contribution. We've discovered 2 issues so far:

  1. the whole structure have new name: it's Air-Assault Forces since November 2017
  2. Artillery Divisions should be Artillery Battalions

More details on the article's talk page. --VoidWanderer (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Artillery Brigade (Ukraine)[edit]

  • Please quote your sources.
  • I have added Interwiki. I suggest you do it yourself, because you know the subject better than me.Xx236 (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the interwiki links. There are a few more, which I would like to ask you to do, as I have no idea where to find the right place to add these links:
As for sources: I posted a short summary of the Ukrainian articles, which are sourced. Would it be enough as source to put a reference to the original and more expansive Ukrainian articles? Thank you, noclador (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I believ you should copy the original references, but I'm not an expert.Xx236 (talk) 07:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Air base naming convention[edit]

Tim Vasquez at specifically set up all the Russian/Soviet airbase names up at Placename (airfield) because that's the way the Russian sources listed them. User_talk:Timvasquez#A_statement_about_my_Russian_airport_work. "..I have never encountered Soviet airfields that literally contain "Air Base" in the title (at least in the English literature). This seems to be mostly a convention the U.S. Air Force uses for its own bases. In Russia the convention seems to be to use the nearest village name, or in the case of a large city, use a numerical designator, i.e. Severomorsk-2. Quite often they are just referred to as, variously, "Tiksi aerodrome" and "Tiksi air base" (uncapitalized). This is also the convention I see in declassified FOIA documents in the CIA archive website. So if there is ambiguity I use (air base)."

That's the way they've been for years. Do you have new information that Ukrainian sources are referring to them as Placename Air Base? Otherwise it looks like we're mirror-imaging Western practice, which is not what we should be doing. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I based my decision to rename them all on the Ukrainian wiki (the work I did over the last two days is all merely translation work from the Ukrainian wiki) and there they name the airbases always in the following way: Авіабаза + name. So I went to bring the English wiki articles in line. Here is the complete list: uk:Список авіабаз України. Ukraine has begun to adapt to NATO standards in everything (naming, structures, C2, ammo, fuel, etc.). noclador (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Not quite sure but we can go with it for now. Suggest we pause on the Ukrainian side and translate uk:Список російських підрозділів вторгнення на території України. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I am already done with all I wanted to do with the Ukrainian military. A few editors had finally managed to do a full listing of the Ukrainian army and air force and that was what I wanted to translate as it is a needed resource in the ongoing conflict. The list of Russian units involved in the war interests me less... because in the end the answer is simply: "All Russian units were involved in the war in Ukraine". Now, weekend time,... maybe I will finally get to do the Bulgarian military in 1989 when I have some time again. noclador (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Structure of the French Army[edit]

Hi, Thanks for the graphic of the structure of the French Army. There is just 3 little mistakes :

  • 1st Division has no Compagnie de Commandement just a staff
  • 3rd Division has no Compagnie de Commandement just a staff
  • État-major spécialisé pour l'outre-mer et l'étranger (EMSOME) is a brigade level staff (X) not a division level staff.

Niko67000 (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Structure of the Bulgarian People's Army 1989[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Structure of the Bulgarian People's Army 1989 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

While extensive, this is not suitable for Wikipedia; Wikipedia is not a database for past military formation information.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. The Bushranger One ping only 01:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Why do you believe that information on past military organisation is not notable? If it is covered in multiple reliable sources, even in a foreign language, it meets GNG, correct? To give a comparison, should I, following your logic, proposed-deletion Departments of the Continental Army? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Structure of the British Armed Forces in 1989[edit]

While the Prod above is inappropriate, I give you warning that if you do not extensively reference the British page named above within 12 hours, I will strip it back to the referenced sections. This is not Bulgaria or other more obscure places where references are scarce. JUST PUT IN FOOTNOTES WHERE YOU FOUND THE DATA!! Reference your work, please!! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know. But give me more than 12 hours. I am retracing all the steps I took to find this info in summer. noclador (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
[Expletive deleted] man!! This website BLEEDS CREDIBILITY because of incomplete referencing!! Can't you KEEP YOUR data AND references TOGETHER!! Buckshot06 (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I will continue to delete every section of the RAF article that does not have in-line referencing. You cannot trace the sources without it. DO THE JOB PROPERLY!! Buckshot06 (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Your actions are vandalism. One can't source stuff when someone else keeps constantly deleting stuff and you have to revert it back in to add the source. Go for a coffee and chill. noclador (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
With all due respect, you are incorrect. Jimmy Wales said "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information." [3][4] Because there are no adequate sources in most of your 1989 articles, and because I keep identify things that are wrong, there is nothing to be gained by having poorly sourced info put up. I will continue exactly what I am doing until you source stuff properly. I've just been dealing with other things and haven't brought the hammer down enough. Do us all a favour and just footnote the details as you pull the data together. Information cannot be evaluated properly, in military-professional circles, without some idea of the source. Otherwise you're in fan-boy territory. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

45th odshbr[edit]

What are your sources for the structure of the 45th Air Assault Brigade (Ukraine) that you added recently? I would like to know for the purposes of WP:VERIFIABLITY. Kges1901 (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I translated the articles regarding the Ukrainian military from the Ukrainian wikipedia. This is the standard organization of all brigades of the Ukrainian Air Assault Forces. The equipment changes from brigade to brigade, but the basic organization remains the same. As of now it is unclear what the numbers of the brigade's battalions are, as so far it was only announced that the brigade was raised by expanding the 88-й аеромобільний батальйон. I am constantly keeping an eye on the Ukrainian wikipedia articles for more info to become available and then add it to the English wiki articles. As for WP:Verifiability - all I can do for now is to guide you to the various brigade articles on the Ukrainian wiki and the uk:Десантно-штурмові війська України article which is the one Ukrainian wikipedians keep updating regularly. noclador (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Structure of the Italian Air Force in 1989[edit]

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 ( 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)

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)

1st Air Region[edit]

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[edit]

* Nuclear weapons capable unit.

Other units[edit]

Hi will you be creating[edit]

The page Structure_of_the_British_Army_in_1989? Cause you did Royal Navy and RAF.


Sammartinlai (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I have created such an article already, but keep it in my sandbox, as I have not found enough sources to confirm in detail all of the data collected about the Army in 1989. Here is the link to the data in my sandbox: User:Noclador/sandbox/Structure of the British Armed Forces in 1989. If I will one day find a reliable source to confirm the information I will move the data to a wiki-article, but for now I will leave it where it is. noclador (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks alot !Sammartinlai (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


I was surprised!! Buckshot06 (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a Cosmetic change... I don't think the US will now do any force-posture changes. Maybe some more trainers to India? noclador (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Completely cosmetic, aimed at China. I'm just waiting to see if we get INDOPAFLT, INDOPACAF, USARINDOPAC, MARFORINDOPAC etc!! Buckshot06 (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
You're correct. And I wonder if Trump will honor the ANZUS treaty... noclador (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
ANZUS is not at issue right now. It *might* need to be invoked after 2020, but the Chinese won't reach Aust/NZ before then. Right now we just need Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, and the Philippines to come up with a clear policy and request U.S. assistance when necessary. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Those countries can't even agree on the color of the sky... I doubt they will ever come up with a clear policy. If they do - I will be surprised. Australia and New Zealand stand alone... that's also on what the new defense policy in Italy grounds. noclador (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)