User talk:Noclador/Archive 13

ORBAT of 1st (UK) Division[edit]

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.

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]

Thanks[edit]

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[edit]

@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[edit]

[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[edit]

		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!![edit]

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)[edit]

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]

ORBATs[edit]

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]

Hi noclador. Idk if you make ORBAT updates to the pages annually or semi-annually etc, but on your next update, please take a look at 2nd_Infantry_Division_(United_States)#Current_structure. I've added a paragraph along with citations for the 81st BCT's affiliation change. It is no longer associated with 2ID. Thank you again for all you do and look forward to your 2ID ORBAT update. --Shovonma17 (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shovonma17: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. When a change in a division is sourced I usually do the updates within 48 hours. That said: I just uploaded the updated 2ID chart. Thank you, noclador (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noclador 1. Thank you kindly for making the update and response. 2. not seeing the update...at least not on my end, yet. The Org chart still shows 81st BCT.

Disregard my last. Maybe a browser glitch on my end. I clicked on the image which showed the chart without 81. And then I revisited the page and now it shows the update. Sorry--Shovonma17 (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

50th Armored Division[edit]

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[edit]

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]

AFDs[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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]

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]
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]
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[edit]

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:

~~Mechanized Infantry Regiment "Saboya" No. 6~~
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[edit]

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![edit]

	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[edit]

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[edit]

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]

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[edit]

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]

Afds[edit]

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[edit]

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![edit]

	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]

Nomination of Structure of the Italian Army in 1974 for deletion[edit]

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]

Nomination of Structure of the Italian Army in 1974 for deletion[edit]

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[edit]

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!

P.S. Um ganz ehrlich zu sein, ich bin eigentlich sehr überrascht, dass ich im Moment so wütend bin. Ich dachte, dass die ganze Geschichte mit dem Wiki für mich schon in der Vergangenheit ist. Offensichtlich nicht. Ich hoffe, dass ich mit dir in Kontakt bleiben kann.B.Velikov (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPA Warning[edit]

This: [8], this: [9] and your comments above are clear personal attacks on me and User:Fram. This is a warning, any further personal attacks and I will move to have you blocked. Mztourist (talk) 11:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For all your hard work on Italian and NATO and any military-related articles! BlueD954 (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Structure of the Swedish Armed Forces in 1989 for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Structure of the Swedish 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 Swedish 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) 10:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Keep the editing, ignore the flak. BlueD954 (talk) 11:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment re Mztourist[edit]

Hi Noclador, it was a good idea to revert this edit. While Fram and Mztourist may share the same views, there is no evidence to suggest that Fram "sent" Mztourist to do anything; Mztourist is quite capable of putting his own views, forcefully (as you will have seen on WT:MILHIST). Let's not accuse others of being "lackeys." Buckshot06 (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	You have great ideas. BlueD954 (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Structure of the Belgian Armed Forces in 1989 for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Structure of the Belgian 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 Belgian 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) 09:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Great work. BlueD954 (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Civility Barnstar
	The name says it. BlueD954 (talk) 05:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet (not you lol)[edit]

Hey Noclador! Thought this may interest you: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeneral28. Thanks – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 15:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI discussion[edit]

Your edits are being discussed at WP:ANI#Stonewalling a merge 6 months after AfD. You are welcome to give your input there. Fram (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OrBat request[edit]

Could you me ORBAT .psd files of Soviet Union/Russia? So I can try it myself? By the way, "Email this user" looks missing in "Tools" section, I cant find it. My Email: chnmc_yan_xin@outlook.com

List of mountain warfare forces[edit]

Dear friend Noclador, could you please explain the reason of your edits to the Article List of mountain warfare forces? It's almost *two years* that I'm working on that page, and it have its own consolidated and definitive style, as follows:

The unit names are translated as literally *as possible* in english, and a full original version of the unit name is provided as well. So, for example, Alpini (Italian) is rendered in english as "Alpine", while the german "Jaeger" or the french "Chasseurs" as "light infantry" could not be rendered as "Hunters" (that is meaningless in english) so "Light Infantry" is used instead (i.e. the correct english functional translation). There is no sense in using a mixed english/original language unit name as "Alpini Battalion": it will not help an english-language user to understand the unit name, and it will not add anything to the article as the full original language unit name is already provided.
There is no sense in putting headers in boldface (Italian Army instead of "Army"): the current headers are not wrong in any way, and "if it's not broken, do not fix it".
Only units that are *mountain trained" are included. So for example the artillery of the Polish 21st Brigade had intentionally not been included, as it is a mechanized unit without mountain training or equipment.

So please, let's talk about this matter *before* any further edit, and let's find a solution in the most friendly and cooperative way. All the best --Arturolorioli (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I left comments at Talk:List of mountain warfare forces last night. Please continue there. noclador (talk) 09:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep the discussion is relaxed tones[edit]

Dear friend Noclador, in the most friendly tones, when you write "I am not inclined to discuss Italian Army naming conventions when someone translates etc etc", you are violating a nice lot of key principles of Wikipedia. Namely:

We are not on a battlefield and contributions are not an ego-war, so, if I may advance a most friendly advice, we should *always* address other in the most friendly, relaxed terms.
Discussion and civilized confront of opinions is *the* most basic principle of Wikipedia, without that there is no Wikipedia at all, so, please, "I'm not inclined to discuss" is something we should never ever *think*, much less write.
There should always be a "presumption of innocence" in any kind of discussion, i.e. an honest, open minded attempt to hear and understand other people's positions and reasoning before judging them and that, in fully friendly terms, is something obviously missing in the approach shown in your opening phrase.

Now, we have talked before on it:WP, and after a few rather shaky starts we have always managed to reach shared and friendly point of view. Everybody have his character and his ways to approach a discussion, and your one is obviously an impetuous, sometimes confrontational one. No problem, everybody has its own ways. But I'm sure that we we are all working together to provide better, richer and more exact contents to other users, so I'm perfectly sure that we'll find a way to *cooperate* friendly and smoothly in this discussion too. All the best --Arturolorioli (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blasonature degli stemmi dei reggimenti italiani[edit]

Buongiorno, ho visto che è lei l'autore degli stemmi di praticamente tutti i reggimenti dell'esercito italiano, ma purtroppo le informazioni sulle blasonature degli stessi sono spesso mancanti. Posso chiederle gentilmente se, magari utilizzandolo come fonte per i suoi lavori, ha per caso una raccolta con tutte le blasonature militari italiane? Mi servirebbero molto per un progetto al quale sto lavorando. La ringrazio in anticipo se riuscirà ad aiutarmi. Aspetto sue notizie.

Buongiorno,

Per più dettagli - il 3° Toma della serie L’esercito Italiano verso il 2000 Vol. 1 e Vol. 2 riportano tutti gli stemmi delle unità in vita dopo la riforma del 1975. noclador (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buonasera, la ringrazio, ma ho già consultato tutte le pagine da lei linkatemi e quello che cerco non sono gli stemmi, ma le blasonature che li descrivono, le quali a volte mancano anche per gli stemmi che lei ha realizzato. Proverò certamente a reperire il libro che mi ha consigliato, nella speranza di trovarvi le blasonature complete, ma nel frattempo volevo chiederle (se è lei che le ha scritte oltre ad aggiungere le immagini) dove ha trovato quelle presenti negli armoriali dell'esercito. Grazie ancora.

Filli99 (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Il tomo 3 dei due libri indicato qui sopra contengono i stemmi e le blasonature di 300+ reparti dell Esercito Italiano. Se mi manda un email tramite la funzione "Email this user" qui su wikipedia le mando le 331 foto, che ho scattato del tomo 3. noclador (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Italian army naming conventions[edit]

@Noclador: last time anyone went into this, the name of an Italian unit was written inside quote marks. Are you sure you're right? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the other person was you, we corresponded further up the page. Keith-264 (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith-264: I am absolutely sure. Italian military naming conventions require the "" marks for all honor names of military units. From division, to brigades, to regiments, battalions - Units are always written as: number type formation "honor name". Until now wikipedia erred in how it used Italian military unit names. Also the two Libyan divisions never were named "Sibelle" and "Pescatori". These are nicknames applied to the two divisions post-war by British writers. noclador (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eighth United States Army[edit]

Hello Noclador. To start off, I just wanted to say I appreciate the work you put into your ORBATs! I find them to be a very nice visual resource for the stuff I'm interested in and I am always happy to see them updated. I wanted to bring up a couple of things from your ORBAT for the Eighth United States Army. I'm pretty sure 4th Company, 58th Airfield Operations Battalion is actually supposed to be 4th Airfield Operations Battalion, 58th Aviation Regiment (which consists of these types of battalions). I can't find anything mentioning 4-58th being reorganized into a company, and I can't recognize the "58th Airfield Operations Battalion" as being a thing. As for the 1st Signal Brigade and 65th Medical Brigade, They have both been relocated to Camp Humphreys. Yongsan Garrison, if it hasn't already, is on the line of being handed over to the Republic of Korea. Which makes me wonder what's up with Camp Kim nowadays, but I don't have much knowledge on that or the Korean Service Corps. Scraps 0 (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thank you for the compliment and thank you for bringing the errors to my attention. noclador (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I also just remembered an extra bit of detail for 2nd CAB if you're able to fit them. 2nd Battalion is located at Seoul Air Base, and E Company is located at Kunsan Air Base. Scraps 0 (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added both bits of info. If there are any other additions, please let me know. noclador (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, apparently the Korean Service Corps is headquartered in Camp Humphreys, according to a timeline on their official Eighth Army page. Scraps 0 (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors in your recent edits[edit]

Hi there! Looks like you've edited several infantry articles over the last couple of days. In those edits, you added <ref name="Ufficio Storico"/>, but never defined a reference named "Ufficio Storico". Now, those articles aren't referenced correctly, and show a visible error. There are about two dozen articles affected.

Did you have a plan to fix these? what reference did you mean to indicate? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it. It was an error from copy-pasting text from other division articles I have edited. I am in the process to add the references now. Was just about to begin saving the articles. noclador (talk) 15:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections to Italian unit names etc[edit]

Thanks for all the time and effort you're taking. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith-264: Thank you and you're welcome. I am doing a full edit of all the WWII Italian divisions based on a book by the History Office of the General Staff of the Italian Army and when I controlled the linked articles I correct the errors. So, there will be more corecctions and edits to come. noclador (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name changes[edit]

Hi @Noclador please stop changing all the article names. The changes regarding Future Soldier aren't due to happen UNTIL 2023. They ARE NOT occurring right now, and as such the pages' names shouldn't be changed. Please don't keep changing them, they aren't due to change until 2023, and as such they need to stay with their current names. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't plan to move any pages until I saw that you had already moved some (i.e. 12th Armoured Brigade Combat Team (United Kingdom)) and assumed we're doing that now. No worries, I won't move any other page. Best regards, noclador (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the late reply. For some reason I wasn't notified you responded and just saw this now. Sorry I was using caps, but you were driving me crazy (not because of your actions), but I'm working on an article about the British Army's structure before Army 2020 and it was lagging terrible as everything was moved around. In the moment I lost my temper, so just wanted to apologise about that. Also, because I got in trouble for moving pages as the Army 2020 Refine changes took place last year and this August, I didn't want the same to transpire and see your great work removed. I've contacted you quite a lot since we have the structure graphics in common and much other things like army structures, and would love to keep working with you, barring this strange moment of Army changes. Again, apologies, but in the moment my reaction was very un-professional for an adult and frankly, looking at what I actually typed, I acted like a little kid as if you just took my piece of candy, so sorry for over-reacting, just didn't want you to have issues with the name changes like I had. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. I already requested that the thread at ANI be closed as resolved. And I won't interfere in your work any further as I can see that the British Army articles are in good hands. Best regards and if you need some OrBat graphics, le me know. noclador (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Always great to work with a fellow graphics editor, especially being that there are only three of us (in the Military History world) if I'm not mistaken. It also might not be bad to refer (I'm going to be doing it soon too) to @SmartyPants22 as he created the 'Future Soldier' page originally. I receive a lot of the RHQ updates for the regiments, but can't release them in the public domain so can't cite them, and have a lot of great information. About a week ago I found out about the Rangers' future, with PWRR announcing the redesignation on 1 December, and the future of the regiment, etc. Also, the future disbandment of 2 R Anglian after their return from Cyprus, but again don't have a way to cite it, so I can't add it. After my little blabber here, my point is we should all work together, not me screaming like a little kid, and SmartyPants created the stub and me then forgetting about it. In that way we can all work towards the common goal of spreading our information and such. Hopefully I can work with you more in the future, Cheers! Coldstreamer20 (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I will be around expanding the Italian WWII division articles. If you need anything write me here. Cheers, noclador (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic Editor Aficionado[edit]

	Graphic Editor Aficionado
	I hereby deem thee, Noclador a Graphic Editor Aficionado for your splendid work on graphics, especially those regarding NATO countries. Keep up the good work sir! Coldstreamer20 (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System[edit]

Hey Noclador, appreciate your work to improve the article M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System. But that doesn't mean we stop improving the article. I left a few article improvement tags so we could get back to making the article better and you just deleted them. For example, here diff.

That's not how its done. If a statement is not sourced, and a source is requested, then we or any editor who knows a source, or which other citation in the article may, in fact, support the statement, should add a citation. Easy to reuse an existing citation as in <ref name=citation_name /> Those statements still yet need cited. N2e (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zabukh[edit]

Hello, I reverted your edits on Zabukh. The Seely source refers to the "appalling destruction" in Stepanakert, which you appeared to be trying to remove mention of by removing the shelling part. You also added "ruins" and changed "renovated" to "razed", but this is not mentioned in any reliable source. Please provide one before making such claims. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian units[edit]

Thanks for renaming all those Ukrainian units pages to remove the unnecessary "separate" from name. Also thanks for all that you do for Ukraine on twitter. I could not find a better place to thank you. Ceriy (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

241st Brigade. 207th and 251st battalions are near Bakhmut, 242nd was rotated out. There is a link to article about 242nd in this one https://vechirniy.kyiv.ua/news/81435/. Also all tank brigades have articles now. Ceriy (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and thank you for thanking me. Are you doing Ukrainian brigade articles? noclador (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only the Territorial defense. I didn't do the 103rd. I will add to it after going through all of the articles. Ceriy (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. I am focusing (when I have time) on Italian Army regiments, and sometimes I go check on Ukrainian brigades. But I don't have the time to do articles for all of them. noclador (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I remembered your name from when you did Ukrainian charts back in 07-09. I did a lot of Ukrainian units pages back then. We had some conversations about units. I lost interest for a long time. Then war kind of brought it back. Ceriy (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the last year has changed a lot... for all of us. Where are you now? I just finished moving all Ukrainian brigade articles to a standard naming, + fixed categories, and some naming errors. So much more needs to be done. noclador (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

80 Rgt Roma[edit]

Hi Noclador, reading the news on aresdifesa.it I found out about the redenomination of the 80th Rgt, its move to Monte Romano and the reactivation of the 3rd (ex heavy field art) Bondone with UAV at Cassino. Every time I see such movements I check your activity on en.wiki, and again it has helped me to understand the move at a glance. But there is one point that I still do not understand: if the 80th moves to Monte Romano, which is nothing more than its closure and a redenomination of the support unit at Monte Romano, what is then going to happen with the training of the Sergeants? Because on de.wiki we have an article about the NCO school at Viterbo, and there it says that only the Marescialli are trained there, while the sergeants are trained at Cassino. But since at Cassino the installation is being reused for the UAV unit, where will they be training the sergeants? Directly at the NCO school at Viterbo? Do you have any confirmed info on that? LKIT2 (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, long time since we last talked. I have no news about the future organization of the training arrangements. There has been no communication about these changes to far. noclador (talk) 14:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

52nd Artillery Regiment "Torino"[edit]

Please add a footnote to the final section on organization. I have reassessed the first two articles on the list as B. I should be able to read all of them in the next day or two, if no one else does so first. Great work, very comprehensive. Donner60 (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to look at the articles. I added two sources for the organization of the regiment. The battery names were taken from the Italian Wikipedia. I am currently in the process of creating articles for all 301 Italian Army regiments and battalions after WWII. So far 187 articles have been finished. My aim is to get all of them to B-class. Besides the Start-class articles I just now also requested an assessment for three articles, which are so far unassessed. And at some point in the future I would like to request other editors to have a look at the 101 articles rated C-class articles now (like i.e. 1st Regiment "Granatieri di Sardegna", or Regiment "Lancieri di Firenze" (9th), or 187th Paratroopers Regiment "Folgore", or Logistic Battalion "Piemonte"). And I have one question: you rated 10th Self-propelled Field Artillery Group "Avisio" and 13th Artillery Regiment "Granatieri di Sardegna" as B-class, and it says so on the talk page, but in the mainspace the article is still listed as Start-class - how does this work? Does there need to be taken one more step to get the articles to be B-class in the mainspace? Thank you, and with best regards, noclador (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to "Category:B-Class military history articles"? If so, the milhist bot has placed the articles into that category page. It is supposed to be done automatically but the bot sometimes does not do this immediately. Since it also does not record the edit history for this on the category page, it is quite possible that the bot added the articles after you wrote this note. On the other hand, if there is another list that I am not calling to mind, please let me know. Donner60 (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That explains it. I was just wondering for what reason they are not immediately listed as B-class, but if it is a bot it makes sense it won't happen right away. Thank you for your answer and thank you for having a look at the articles. noclador (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

9th Electronic Warfare Battalion "Rombo"[edit]

Please provide a footnote for the last sentence of the article. I would guess it is from footnote 2 by the date, but I can't read Italian so I am not sure. Thanks. Several more articles reassessed B. Donner60 (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

9th Electronic Warfare Battalion "Rombo", added a footnote and as the Italian Army has now updated the units entry on its website also added that as reference. noclador (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

42nd Signal Battalion "Pordoi"[edit]

Please provide a footnote for the event in the two sentence paragraph beginning "On 1 October 1957...." Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added. noclador (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11th Transport Regiment "Flaminia"[edit]

Please provide a citation for the last sentence of the organization (platoons included). I tried to find it in the other citations but I can not read Italian and did not recognize it if the information is in one of them. That level of detail for Italian units also does not appear to be in the linked articles in that sentence. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All other articles in start class group now B Class. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 07:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! As for the listing of the platoons are taken from the Italian Defense Ministry's "Manuale di Gestione", which each unit should upload and keep up to date on the defense ministry's website. An example: the 52nd Field Artillery Regiment "Torino" has properly uploaded its Manuale in 2022 - a pdf with 25 pages that lists every office/unit in the regiment and how to contact it. Other units are slacking and haven't uploaded it in years (i.e. 11th Transport Regiment "Flaminia" hasn't uploaded it and so we can only reference the basic outline of the unit). Should I take the platoons out for the units, which haven't posted their Manuale di Gestione? These companies are standardized throughout the army, but in case B-class requires to have it referenced for every unit specifically, then it will be better to take them out for the units, which haven't uploaded their Manuale di Gestione. noclador (talk) 08:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: I have been going through the 2023 Manuale di Gestione and saw that for non-combat units the medical platoons seems to have been removed. As there now seems to be no coherent source for the current platoons of the Command and Logistic Support companies I am taking the platoons everywhere out; while also adding links to the Manuale di Gestione pdfs as a additional reference. noclador (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have assessed B. The three new articles are also assessed B. Great work. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: Thank you for the compliment and thank you for assessing the articles. As said I have 100+ more that are now C, but are likely all actually B. I will add them over time to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests as I in parallel keep writing new articles. Thank you again, and happy holidays. noclador (talk) 11:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your work on these articles. I have left a note about the start class articles and checked the first one. It is B class. There may have been some error in the updating of the assessments of all of them. I don't think that can be presumed even if likely. Each article will need to be looked at briefly to be sure none of them need further work. It may or may not be a fast process.

I have assessed the first C class article. If no one else steps forward to check some of these, I will move them along as fast as I can. In addition to the holidays, I need to be sure any potential contest entries are checked for the year end evaluation. I also need to prepare a presentation on a military history topic (some of the 1918 World War I battles) for a January 2 meeting. So it may take some time to get the assessments done on this list. Happy holidays to you as well - and stay safe. Donner60 (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for having taken the time to look at the first articles. And please don't stress yourself about these articles - enjoy your holidays. Cheers

One thing: at Talk:2nd Regiment "Granatieri di Sardegna" - as you say it is B-class, should I go ahead and edit the parameters on the talk page accordingly? thank you, noclador (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023[edit]

Hello, Noclador. I noticed that your recent edit to 5th Field Artillery Regiment "Superga" added a link to an image on an external website or on your computer, or to a file name that does not exist on Wikipedia's server. For technical and policy reasons it is not possible to use images from external sources on Wikipedia. Most images you find on the internet are copyrighted and cannot be used on Wikipedia, or their use is subject to certain restrictions. If the image meets Wikipedia's image use policy, consider uploading it to Wikipedia yourself or request that someone else upload it. See the image tutorial to learn about wiki syntax used for images. Thank you. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 21:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad. I mixed up the image name with the image text. I wanted to edit the latter and in error did the former, and didn't realize it. Thank you for trying to fix my error. noclador (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

151st Infantry Regiment "Sassari"[edit]

For the last sentence of the article, please repeat the citation if it applies or provide another one or if necessary omit the sentence. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: Fixed. noclador (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1st NBC Battalion "Etruria"[edit]

Please provide citation for Chemical Regiment reorganization in 1942 paragraph. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: Fixed! Thank you for finding these errors I made! Best regards, noclador (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Field Artillery Regiment "a Cavallo"[edit]

Please provide citations for information in the Organization section. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: Fixed! Thank you. Best regards, noclador (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, Noclador. Thank you for your work on Monte Fior. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrovieri Engineer Regiment[edit]

I assume that footnote 10 covers the last sentence of the organization concerning the railway equipment. But I can't read it so I am not sure. It might be best to repeat the citation at the end of that sentence. If the information in the sentence is not covered in that source, please cite a source. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: Removed the line as the info is from a promotional clip the Italian Army posted about the regiment on the army's facebook page, and I do not want to link to facebook as a source. noclador (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6th Pioneer Regiment (Italy)[edit]

Please provide a citation for the sentence about the formation and naming of the second pioneer battalion in recent times. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 09:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: Fixed. That was already in the source "Associazione Nazionale Genieri e Trasmettitori d'Italia", but I forgot to add a reference to the line in question. noclador (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Pontieri Engineer Regiment[edit]

Please provide a citation for the new units mobilized for World War II. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 09:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: Fixed. Forgot to add the reference here, which was as for other units' WWII mobilization L'Esercito Italiano verso il 2000. noclador (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8th Field Artillery Regiment "Pasubio"[edit]

Again, sorry to say, I can't tell whether the last sentence of the organization section is covered by the prior footnote. As with the earlier mention of Ferrovieri Engineer Regiment, it would probably be best to repeat it if it is covered or to provide another one if it is not. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 09:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: Fixed. Added a second source about the introduction of the Arthur radar in the unit and the use of PzH 2000. noclador (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

You have done such a good job with these articles that I would rather not trouble you with these relatively minor citation matters for one citation in an article. I realize some, but apparently not all, are covered by the prior citation. Since there is no way for me to determine which ones are covered, in part because the final sentences appear that they could be from another source, I think I need to bring these up. Another potential problem that I have thought about is that a casual reader might come along and add a citation needed tag to these final sentences. I am sure we both want to avoid the chance that would happen. Keep up the good work. Before too long (I hope), I am sure that all the articles will be assessed B class. Donner60 (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{@Donner60: Thank you. And I agree with you on fixing the omitted citations. I will add them whenever you find one. One thing: you edited the Assessment Page saying that "8th Field Artillery Regiment "Pasubio" assessed B class", however it seems you forgot to update the class at Talk:8th Field Artillery Regiment "Pasubio". Could you please fix this, as I do not feel like changing the class after having written the article. Thank you. noclador (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

13th HUMINT Regiment (Italy)[edit]

Please provide a citation for the organization under the subheading 13th Target Acquisition Group "Aquileia". Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: - fixed. Was in oversight, as the two prior citations were the sources, but better to add them to the listing too. Also: is it ok if I ping you, or would you prefer I don't do that? noclador (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging is fine. We have an ongoing correspondence. Pinging would make sure the information comes through to me in an efficient manner. Donner60 (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

24th Field Artillery Regiment "Peloritani"[edit]

Please provide a citation for the last sentence: "The Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Tactical Liaison Battery is equipped with RQ-11B Raven unmanned aerial vehicles and ARTHUR counter-battery radars." Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: I took the text about RQ-11B Raven and ARTHUR out of the regiment, which use towed howitzers. The page describing how these units will get Raven on the Italian Army's website requires now login credentials, which I don't have. noclador (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

41st Signal Regiment (Italy); 43rd Signal Regiment, 45th Signal Regiment, 47th Signal Battalion "Gennargentu"[edit]

Please provide a citation for the last sentence of the articles. Would you prefer that I do these in groups such as this, when I have them or individually? Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: Will add citation. It doesn't matter how you bring these to my attention. Thank you. And one weird thing: A bot just came and down-rated one of your assessments. The same bot also rated a bunch of unassessed articles within a minute as C-class. I.e. here and here. And also rated an article as Start, which I am still in the middle of writing: 3rd Heavy Artillery Regiment "Volturno". Should I revert the one that down-rated one of your assessments? And by what criteria does the bot decide something is Start or C-class? Thank you, noclador (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: Fixed the signal units - my bad! I forgot to take the line about the platoons out. We discussed that earlier with some of the artillery regiments, that it seems the army changed/disbanded some of the platoons in the rear area units and to source the platoons doesn't make sense for 200+ Command and Logistic Support Companies, respectively Command and Tactical Support Companies. I will check all the remaining articles and take that line out. noclador (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message on the signal units. Donner60 (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only left the platoons in for the 33rd EW Regiment (Italy), as the Defense Ministry lists the three platoons there.

I must say that I don't know exactly what parameters the bot uses. Hawkeye7 set up the bot to check broad parameters. It sometimes makes mistakes. Coordinators can overrule the bot. A list of bot assessed articles is posted on the coordinator talk page at the end of each month. Coordinators are asked to check whether the bot was correct. This is usually done by one or more of the coordinators within a few days of the end of the month. However, I think the bot list is only for articles that the bot rated B and may be subject to downgrading by coordinators. I think someone may need to notify the coordinators that they think the bot has made a downgrading mistake. I am not sure whether these downgraded articles are put on an existing separate list of articles needing B class assessments. Some of those backlog lists are rather long and it could easily take a long time for someone to review articles on the lists, if it gets done at all from coordinators reviewing the lists. Donner60 (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: I checked the Ferrovieri Engineer Regiment: one of the regiment's organization trees, had three citations in the paragraph above, but not for the specific tree... that might be the reason it was down-rated. I added the three citations now also to the organization tree. noclador (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We have been working on those sentences, at least partly for that reason. The bot will assume that the lone sentence is a paragraph because of its separation from the chart. So it will downgrade the article under b1 because it finds that all paragraphs do not have a citation at the end. That much I know about how the bot works. Donner60 (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: I reverted the bot on Ferrovieri Engineer Regiment as that was the only line I found without a citation. For the other regiments, the same problem, so I will copy/paste the citations from the paragraph to associated organization tree. But I do not know what to do about 9th Heavy Artillery Regiment (Italy), as just before the World War II section I list the batteries the regiment was responsible to form in case of war... does every bullet point here need the same citation at the end? Thank you for helping me understand this, noclador (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have assumed that a citation at the start of the tree or the sentence leading into the tree is enough. It certainly should be and I have been assessing on that basis. Perhaps the bot wants one at the end of the tree. I think that none of the bullet points need an additional citation, but if the bot thinks it is a separate paragraph, the last bullet point will need to have the earlier citation repeated after it in order to satisfy the bot that the "paragraph" for the entire tree has a citation. Frustrating, but I am as certain as I can be at this point that this is what is happening. Donner60 (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: The bot just rated all five mountain artillery groups as C-class, even though three have every paragraph with citations: Mountain Artillery Group "Agordo", Mountain Artillery Group "Sondrio", Mountain Artillery Group "Udine"; and the other have all paragraph with citations, except for their WWI organization, because there are four citations after: "The Mountain Artillery Group "Genova" entered World War I with the following organization:". I have all these units listed on the assessment page too... so hopefully you, or another editor, will have a look and double check these assessments. noclador (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at them tonight or soon. I might guess that these may have the same problems with the bot assuming that the end of a chart and/or a sentence after the chart is a separate paragraph for which it wants a citation. It may be just the one WWI organization that needs the citation for the one article that you mention. Since you have looked at the articles, I doubt the problem is with anything other than the citations that the bot seems to want as discussed in our previous posts. Donner60 (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bot assessments[edit]

I have reassessed the three articles mentioned in your previous post and the two other mountain artillery group articles as B class. I am sure the bot is making these assessment because it "thinks" the organization chart is a separate paragraph and is not recognizing that the citations are in the lead-in sentence. It seems as if the only way to prevent the bot from doing this is to put the citations in the lead in sentence and repeat them at the end of the organization charts. I surmise that simply switching the citations might lead the bot to assess the lead-in sentence as a separate paragraph. The only way to convince the bot that the citations are sufficient appears to be to put them in twice. Donner60 (talk) 09:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for having a look at the articles in question. The bot also judges an article as "Start" when one section's headline isn't followed by any text... even if before that are pages of text. As always: AI isn't as helpful as people think it is. noclador (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Signal Regiment (Italy)[edit]

Please provide citation for last sentence. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: Fixed. Was in the citation [7] above the organization tree. noclador (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completed assessment requests[edit]

I know you are keeping up with the completed assessments. One of the other coordinators seems to have been removing some completed assessments from the assessment request page earlier than I would remove them. In the case of these multiple assessments, I have not been using a reply or a ping so you are not getting automatic notice. As long as this continues, please be aware that if you look at the page and see items removed, it is because I have marked them as completed and the other coordinator has removed them along with others from the past few days. You can open the history, of course, to see the assessment progress. I will usually remove completed assessments when I am sure that you, or another editor in other cases, have been online and have had a chance to see them. As information. Donner60 (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: Thank you for letting me know. I have a look every day to check, which ones have been assessed and are now B-class; and which still require work. I added one more today, but will now take a break before adding the rest of the heavy artillery regiments - work calls me back to the office. I will also, have a look at a batch of 49 articles I finished winter 2022-23 and slowly add them to the assessments page. Thank you for your help in bringing these articles to B-class. Cheers, noclador (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

V Corps organisation 2023[edit]

Dear Noclador, I have seen the organization chart you uploaded for V Corps (United States) as of May 2023. What are the sources for it? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Buckshot06, the sources are a variety of US Army Europe websites, but primarily this factsheet by the US Army Europe and Africa: "V Corps will command and control Atlantic Resolve rotational units, and assigned units such as the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, 12th Combat Aviation Brigade, and the 41st Field Artillery Brigade"

and also:

U.S. Army V Corps: "mission command and oversight of the rotational forces in Europe."

and this about SETAF:

U.S. Army Southern European Task Force, Africa: "Comprised of the 173rd Airborne Brigade, the 207th Military Intelligence Brigade, the 414th Contracting Command and the 509th Signal Battalion"

noclador (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, thanks. And the grouping of the rotating brigades into two separate divisions, and which brigades you've lined up with each? Where did that come from? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The two divisions came from a press release of the US Army some time back in 2022, which announced that III Armored Corps would rotate one of its division commands, the associated sustainment brigade, a combat aviation brigade and two armored brigade combat teams to Europe; while XVIII Airborne Corps would rotate one of its division commands and the associated sustainment brigade, and a light brigade combat team to Europe. Some time later there was also a press release that due to Atlantic Resolve the brigade rotating to South Korea would be from now on a Stryker Brigade Combat Team instead of a Armored Brigade Combat Team. Since then these units have rotated to Europe:

1st rotation:
- 1st Infantry Division
  - 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division
  - 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division
  - Combat Aviation Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division
  - 1st Infantry Division Sustainment Brigade
- 82nd Airborne Division
  - 3rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division
  - 82nd Airborne Division Sustainment Brigade
2nd rotation:
- 4th Infantry Division
  - 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division
  - 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division
  - Combat Aviation Brigade, 1st Armored Division
  - 4th Infantry Division Sustainment Brigade
- 101st Airborne Division
  - 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division
  - 101st Airborne Division Sustainment Brigade
3rd rotation:
- 3rd Infantry Division
  - 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division
  - 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division
  - Combat Aviation Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division
  - 3rd Infantry Division Sustainment Brigade
- 10th Mountain Division
  - 1st Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division
  - 10th Mountain Division Sustainment Brigade

One thing that happened since the first press release: XVIII Airborne Corps' 3rd Infantry Division was rotated to Europe instead of 1st Armored Division, which is in the middle of its Army 2030 reorganization. noclador (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grand. Do you remember whether the press release was from USAREUR or from Army Staff in DC? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was a Department of the Army press release, which I saw by chance on twitter. Since then the US Army keeps announcing every 9 months, which units will replace the ones in Europe and I keep checking their press release website for such news: i.e. 82nd Airborne Division replacing 10th Mountain Division. noclador (talk) 13:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. You know I add a lot of references to articles. Came across this interesting one about Western armies in the Iraq War and War in Afghanistan (2001-2021): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03071847.2022.2149124

You or I could probably get a copy in WP:TWL if you wanted to read it. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All logistics articles in first post now assessed[edit]

I have now assessed all of the logistics articles which finishes the assessment of all the articles in the first request. All are B class. Thanks for the great work in bringing these all up to B class. I will continue with the others from the later posts that are still not reviewed as time permits. I don't expect it to take a long period of time. I am sending this message since I know you are busier right now and I can not be sure how long the review will remain in the active section of the page. Donner60 (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I saw it! I am glad we I can develop these articles to B-class, which is what I aim to do with all the Italian Army units active since WWWII. Cheers, noclador (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5th Field Artillery Regiment "Superga"[edit]

Please provide a citation in the final section for the sentence about assignment to the Army Grouping. I assume it is from a citation in the previous sentence, but it should be added. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: Thank you for seeing this error, when I split that paragraph! The citations for this were at the end of the paragraph below. One question: Should I begin adding the other 40+ articles now that need to be assessed or do you wish to have a break?. Thank you, noclador (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for a week would be good. I have a busy week scheduled so I am not sure I would make much progress this week. As you have seen all of the articles are now B class. Great work on improving these articles. Donner60 (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Engineer Regiment (Italy)[edit]

V Fortification Pioneers Battalion should have a citation since all of the other units have individual citations. The International missions section should have one citation, or more if needed. One mission does not have a linked article but the overall list - or individual units if necessary - should have citations.

I assume you will look at the list to check on completed assessments. If you want me to ping or notify you, let me know. Units with pre-20th century histories are especially interesting. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: As explained below for the 8th Paratroopers Engineer Regiment "Folgore" I blanked the international missions section. Added the citation for the V Fortification Pioneers Battalion. And please ping me if there are any errors to fix, as this helps me to quickly fix any issues. There are some cavalry regiments coming up next, which date back to the 17th century. Cheers, noclador (talk) 07:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 07:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

8th Paratroopers Engineer Regiment "Folgore"[edit]

This also needs a citation, or citations, for International operations. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: Blanked the section. This article is one the articles that existed prior to my ongoing work to bring all articles about Italian Army units to wikipedia. A lot these articles have sections, which have been added by other editors before me. Until now I was reluctant to blank these sections, but as many of these sections lack citations of any kind, and I can't quickly find some I feel now it is ok for me to blank these sections. noclador (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a good way to move them along. You can always add them later if you come across them. Donner60 (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

32nd Engineer Regiment (Italy)[edit]

Please provide a citation in the Cold War section. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donner60: Fixed. noclador (talk) 06:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]