User talk:Skjoldbro/Archive 2

Dear colleague Skjoldbro, it is a pleasure to me to answer on your question pertaining to OR enlisted private ranks or level.

• In Germany the situation is crystal clear. Soldat is OR1 and Gefreiter OR2. The same procedure was in the NAZI Wehrmacht until 1945, and in the East German National people´s Army until 1990.
• Russian proceeded equivalent to Germany until 1918 with Ryadovoy OR1 and Yefreytor OR2.
• In the former Soviet Union armed forces until 1992, Ryadovoy was OR1 and Yefreytor OR2 as well.^[1] Based on the Soviet military doctrine, the other armed forces proceeded in line to the order of the Soviet Union, e.g. Bulgaria table 70, Poland table 71 etc.
• According to the modern days Russian Armed forces, I anticipate a similar procedure. And this is in line to the personal experience of my service in SHAPE 1999 to 2003, and my assignment to SFOR NATO HO 2001 in Sarayevo. However, according to STANAG 2116, I am not UpToDate. If you have good reasons to asses Yefretor = OR4, please feel free. However, the lowest NCO grade Maldshy sershchant is definitive OR5.
• Perhaps a last remark: I would like to prefer the evaluation of the lowest enlisted grades by the appropriate nation. We should ask our colleagues of countries concerned. These nations are now free and should have the right to define grades and ranks themselves.

Very respectfully --MilHistExp (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@MilHistExp: While you might be correct concerning Russian Yefreytor in the past, there has been some changes since Bulgaria joined NATO. As you can see in NATO STANAG 2116 (Edition 6) the German Gefreiter is still OR-2, however the Bulgarian Yefreytor is definitely an OR-4. Now, since Russia isn't a part of NATO is hard to say what their exact ranks are. However, seeing that ranks in general are similar between Russia and Bulgaria, it could therefore be argued that the Bulgarian Yefreytor and Russian Yefreytor share the same NATO code (OR-4). Skjoldbro (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok, with Bulgaria. However, pertaining to Russia, I do propose NOT to change with respect to the nation. --MilHistExp (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@MilHistExp: Why though? They have the same rank structure, seems weird and confusing that one post-Soviet Yefreytor is OR-4 and another is OR-2. Similarly, you seem to be misunderstanding something in the Comparative ranks of Nazi Germany. The ranks there are not based on the STANAG 2116, per say, but rather on the comparison to the British forces as listed in CIA. "Records Integration Title Book" (PDF). Skjoldbro (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, hope you are well !

I started some recolouring of should boards for this article Ranks in the French Army. However, as you can see for the cavalry ones, I've left the riffles and grenade of the infantry. Clearly, changing it to this common armor and helmet fr:Grades_de_l'Armée_de_terre_française#Arme_Blindée_-_Cavalerie is far above my skills with SVG files. I don't know if you can do something (since you drastically improved the infantry ones) or know someone. Just wanted to let you know !

CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@CocoricoPolynesien: I had a go at one of the them. It is by no means perfect. What do you think? Skjoldbro (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Well I think that is just great ! And you did it so fast, thank you very much for the work ! CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello !

I just stumbled upon that while editing...

• List of Information Ministers of France
• Minister of Information (France)

Same article... What to we do ? Rename the list to the Ministry to keep Ministry and Minister distinct ? French articles are a mess, with some Ministers redirecting to the Ministries, and some Ministries redirecting to the Ministers. And apparently now there are articles in double ! We need a sort of standard I think.

I created a new navbox (on the model of the US one) : French Government Leaders, that deals with the Ministers, with the patern "Minister of ... (France)".

And there is the old one : French Government, that deals, I believe, with the Ministries, with the patern "Ministry of ... (France)"

As for the name of the portfolios, as you may have seen, they change like every years... What do you think ?

CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@CocoricoPolynesien: Wow, very confusing stuff. What a mess. Concerning Minister of Information, I don't really know. One of them should definitely be either change to ministry or be a simple redirect. But which one, I don't know. The List has the link to the French page, but that can always be changed. About portfolios, when I have worked on them on Danish ministers I do like here. That way there is always the base Minister and other titles can always be linked and removed without any issue to the core of the page. The only problem with this, is that you end up with a lot of pages and tables which share a lot of the same information. Skjoldbro (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I resolve the matter with a move and redirect, that should be good. But unfortunately the cross wiki language links don't seem to follow the redirect and are tied to the redirect page. Tried to solve the problem on wikidata but was reverted, as it seems they don't want a French list article linked to an English normal article, even if they're the same. Stupid from my point of view, but who am I, eh ! So now you got something like 3 articles named "list" in different languages and 2 articles named normally in other different languages, but no way to link the 2 with the other 3. (I'm just frustrated there ahah).

Anyway, thanks for sharing your proceeding with the Danish ministers, I'll look into it ! CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 09:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you support this page https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansk_tilbagetr%C3%A6kning_fra_EU ? Because after some time it will be deleted "Maskinoversættelse og/eller tvivlsomt indhold" and "Denne side virker ikke som en encyklopædisk artikel". Wname1 21:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC) 1

It looks like you inadvertandly broke Template:Ranks and Insignia of UK/CDT/Blank a few weeks ago while trying to clean it up. I've reverted it, but please consider thinking about what templates may rely on the configuration of the template's code. It didn't do anything major, just thought I'd tell you. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 11:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you reverted a table design on the British Army officer rank insignia article to a previous design and described it as "better" and I was just wondering what made the older design better since the design I had added, clearly separated the different designs to year brackets as well as giving the table a more uniform layout with equal widths for each design. I was just hoping you could provide your perspective on this as I believe that the design I had added was improved. Thanks. Terasail^[Talk] 22:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Terasail: Sure. It keeps the same layout as Army OR ranks, RAF other ranks and all the comparative pages. It is a generally simpler design. And it goes from oldest to most current, just like every other list on Wikipedia (e.g. List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom). Skjoldbro (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Can you keep an eye on this article: Byelorussian Home Defence. User:Brigade Piron on Aug. 3, removed the rank insignia section with the argument WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I have restored it (Talk:Byelorussian Home Defence), but might not have time fight an edit war. Or I might need backup if an edit war starts. Creuzbourg (talk) 13:13, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the tag, Creuzbourg. I suggest you assume good faith and read why edit wars are prohibited. You should probably also avoid canvassing. If you think my edits should be undone, that's fine. We can discuss it at Talk:Byelorussian Home Defence. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The article cites "Linvald 1929" but no such source is listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Also in General Staff (Denmark), there is a cite to "Bjerg 2011". Which of the 4 works by Bjerg in 2011 this is supposed to reference? Renata (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

WRT Template:NATO command structure

Under JFC-NF Norfolk, Virginia, US The Coat of Arms of JFC-NF does not link to the Joint Force Command Norfolk page. When I try to standardise it with the above JFCs, I fail you. Can you help standardise it so the small Coat of Arms links to JFC-NF page? I'm not an expert with templates. Feel free to edit my File:Joint Force Command Norfolk badge.png file here. Thanks. BlueD954 (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@BlueD954: I took a quick look at the problem. The reason that you can't get it to work the standardise way, is because the image isn't classified as JFC-NF's coat of arms on it Wikidata page:Joint Force Command Norfolk (Q65118644). Since the image isn't on commons, it can't be added to the Wikidata page. Skjoldbro (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Joint_Force_Command_Norfolk_badge.png Ok it is on commons. Can you help me what next? BlueD954 (talk) 12:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@BlueD954: I tried, but I can't seem to get it to work either. Then again, it isn't my area of expertise. Maybe try your luck with the editor who made the template or others whom have contributed heavily. Skjoldbro (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought you were the editor but thanks. BlueD954 (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Skjoldbro, I was wondering if you understood why the majority of rank images for the Vigili del Fuoco are prevented from being transferred to commons, as seen here.

Reading the cited section of Italian law, it would seem that their use on Wikipedia is within the allowed usage. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cdjp1: hmm, not really. It would, in any case, seem weird that half is copyrighted and the other half isn't. But seeing as they are all based on the army insignia, I would assume they all are free. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

You've undid many of my previous edits as much as I know. Can I ask why... Sanjidul Islam (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Because your changes are WP:UNSOURCED, as such your changes were reverted based on WP:BRD. I have given more in-depth response at Template talk:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Armies/OR/Bangladesh. Skjoldbro (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

As I have said in the template talk page that the link (https://joinbangladesharmy.army.mil.bd/home/page/ranks-insignia) is not the official page of Bangladesh army. The official page is www.army.mil.bd ,and the page clearly states the ranks categorically as 'Officers', 'Warrant Officers', and 'Soldiers'. Check this one. It's the official one.(https://www.army.mil.bd/Rank-Categories) Sanjidul Islam (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I need some help, if you'd be willing to teach me. At User:Garuda28/sandbox I've been trying to create a new table for enlisted ranks to match the officer table at United States Armed Forces (the NATO one was to clogged). Basically I know I need a colspan=2 to accommodate the Army ranks, but there is only one Marine rank in that grade. Do you know how I could fix this problem? Thanks. Garuda28 (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Garuda28: Why not just use the templates? I can see that you already had a US Armed Forces comparison. That look good and interesting. In any case, if you want there to be a "hole" for the USMC equivalent of Command sergeant major, then you just need a | between SGM and SGMMC (image and text). Alternatively, |rowspan=2| only at the images. OR, like you talked about, | colspan=2| for the USMC SGM, this would place it between the USA SGM and CSM. Skjoldbro (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah...I was initially hoping that the NATO tables would work for it, unfortunately they were just a little to much cluttered (and in the reverse direction of most rank charts), so I figured I start from scratch. May as well try my hand at learning tables as well. Thanks! I may have some other questions when this is all said and done. Garuda28 (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Aspersions by Beyond My Ken. Thank you. Darren-M talk 19:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Skjoldbro:

I would like to apologize to you for my comments concerning you and the glorification of Nazis, and I formally retract my statements to that effect. I am sorry if these remarks caused you any distress.

Sincerely,

Beyond My Ken

Apology accepted. Thanks. Skjoldbro (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello. As you may see at Template:Chief of military by country, article Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces (Liberia) does not exist, as of this moment. Would you be willing to create it? IMHO, English Wikipedia should have article about the position of commander of the Armed Forces of Liberia. I myself recently created Chief of the Defence Staff (Ivory Coast), so maybe the Liberian article may be modeled somewhere along its line. Cheers, —Sundostund (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sundostund:  Done Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces (Liberia), however, sources are not readily available, so there are some gaps in what I have been able to find. Skjoldbro (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Man, you really are awesome! You've done a perfect job, as usual. As for gaps, it doesn't matter – we will fill them as new sources emerge over time. —Sundostund (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

Figured this would be of some interest to you (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tony_L._Whitehead_(3).jpg). Garuda28 (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Garuda28:  Done Thanks, File:USAF Senior Enlisted Advisor for the National Guard Bureau.svg. Skjoldbro (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that you created a flag for the Surgeon General of the United States without the silver edge fringe. Would you be able to do the same for the flag for the Assistant Secretary for Health? Neovu79 (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Neovu79:  Done File:Flag of the United States Assistant Secretary for Health.svg. Skjoldbro (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

You are awesome! Neovu79 (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of governors of the United States Virgin Islands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican Party.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I hate asking for your help but I don't know how to use the templates so if you could help me in Brazil templates in Police Ranks I would appreciate it because I wanted to add two ranks and messed everything up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:3D5C:27:C401:597A:B16D:F483:C1D (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Matador (Danish TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Karen Smith.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I found your comments on my recent edit here, the shoulder insignia/epaulet might be similar to each other but they pretty much not worn or visible at the same time. It was to show distinction between the two as the flag officers have their shoulder insignia/epaulet beside their sleeve insignia and it would be fair if the non-flag officers have theirs too. Templates for other countries such as that of UK and the US place each insignia beside each other even though the non-flag rank officers' shoulder and sleeve insignia look the same and I don't think it's something unnecessary. SoaringEagle29 (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@SoaringEagle29: The only difference between the shoulder and sleeve for non-flag officers is a button. So there is no real difference, it would just be repetition to have the practically same image. Readers are able to see the image and extrapolate it's the same for shoulders. Just like they are able to do on almost every other template, where only one or the other is shown. If there were to be images that has the shoulder, sleeve and collar insignia collected image like the US, then that would be preferable, as that would actually show some of the diversity. It would also prevent the wrong use of the <br />, as this created a tall template, rather than a wide one, since all others have them side-by-side, not up-down. Skjoldbro (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Off topic, but how about the creation of a Philippine Coast Guard officers and enlisted rank insignia tables. Its just an idea. DarleenDolphin1 (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro, the officer rank insignia are the same as the navy except the shoulder boards are navy blue and have the logo dolphin and anchor in gold while flag officers have a white and silver logo dolphin and anchor. DarleenDolphin1 (talk) 07:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear, Skjoldbro

I've wanted to apologize for being a pain to you by editing rank insignia pages. My only intention was to provide accurate information about rank insignia and their actual appearances to help improve our military hearaldry community.

Yours truly, DarleenDolphin1 (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@DarleenDolphin1: No problem, it is important to have the correct information at all times. I do however wonder how you came to the conclusion that the Vanuatu Mobile Forces have anything higher than a Colonel, seeing as the Commander has only ever been a Colonel or below? Additionally, do you have any more pictures of their uniforms, preferably in a parade/formal version? Since that is normally the version that we choose to display. Skjoldbro (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

For the ranks higher than Colonel, are the police Commissioners which act like generals during times of war, which is why I did that. Every time I search "Vanuatu mobile force officer" they are either really blurry or I get this picture, which has the parade uniform. https://www.sista.com.vu/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/female-officer-erramango.jpg

https://dailypost.vu/news/minister-thanks-vpf-and-vmf/article_14117928-8e25-5556-b10f-d1c788fd072b.html

Their parade uniform is their service uniform, and in the first image, a dress uniform with soft shoulder boards. DarleenDolphin1 (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro, just wanted to let you know that the solomon islands maritime police use naval ranks up to the rank of commodore, basically the same navy ranks as Tonga. DarleenDolphin1 (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I wanted to let you know that I created some images from elements of your images, but have since pulled them from the uploaded page. I don't have any experience with copyright or linscencing rules on commons and I don't think we both want a legal battle or case. Can you help me delete the following images from commons.

File:Maldives Coast Guard OF-9.png

File:Maldives Coast Guard OF-8.png

File:Maldives Coast guard OF-7.png

File:Maldives Coast Guard OF-6.png

Yours truly,

DarleenDolphin1 DarleenDolphin1 (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@DarleenDolphin1: these files are fine, there is no problem with them. However, you should place them in a commons category and if you feel like it; add: {{attrib|Maldives-Navy-OF-4.svg|Skjoldbro}} after {{own}} in the source. Skjoldbro (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Skjoldbro. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Tune Line, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Noticed your changes to the US Armed Forces pages, switching out tables for templates, nice work (glad you didn't reverse the order). I wanted to ask about the USMC enlisted gold on red; I believe there's consensus for that change, (or change back as it were), are you going to be swapping those? Cheers - wolf 00:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I just realized you changed the enlisted rank color to a midnight blue/black (I thought it was straight black for a second before I realized it was a midnight blue). It seems way darker than the AF service dress (although with the right lighting it can appear straight black in certain photos); the previous blue color on the ranks may have been a tad to vibrant though. Here's what the AF currently has on their website, using a bit of a less vibrant blue, but still distinctly blue (https://www.af.mil/About-Us/The-Book/Enlisted-Ranks/igphoto/2000586436/). Any chance of having the color match that instead? Garuda28 (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Garuda28: Yeah I was wrestling with what colour to choose, but I tried to get the one was most accurate to the current service uniform. But I will concede that it might be too dark to see the blue. I think the AF's is maybe a bit too light. Would you object to it being either of the colour codes shown on Midnight blue? Still blue, but dark enough to be reminiscent of the service uniform. Skjoldbro (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe something like the colour used on United States Air Force Academy Cadet Insignia? Skjoldbro (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

So the USAF cadet insignia is straight jet black, like the Navy shoulder rank, so that wouldn’t be a good sample. I actually think (having seen the service dress in person) the new AF's computer rendered one is probably as close to the true color of the service uniform as you would be able to get with a rendering. The midnight blue color code still seems too dark – more like the Army's ASU than the Air Force service dress. Garuda28 (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Garuda28: I'll take your word for it ;) I will update the colour sometime tomorrow. Skjoldbro (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

You're the best! Sources on the internet seem to indicate the specific shade of blue is Shade 1620. I'm not sure if that helps, but figure you may be more familiar with the specific conversion. Garuda28 (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Garuda28:  Done Skjoldbro (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Can you replace the Romanian flags in the country data templates i speak about the flags from 1948 until 1989?. See if you find them on Commons and replace them with the flag with the longer dashes. Yours sincerely, Sondre --80.212.169.236 (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean, but if you have any requests for changes to country data templates you can post on its talk page. Skjoldbro (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey! I added references to Chief of the General Staff (Israel) and I would like if you can check the references (also if something I added may not be added), I don't have a lot of experience adding references. This was added after you put the missing references tags. Thank you! Adam080 (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

So I was looking at the Iranian enlisted rank titles, and it looks whoever added it (seems to be a blocked user for now) just copied over the U.S. ranks exactly (Private E-2 was a nice giveaway). Anyways, I've been looking for a translated version on the web but haven't found anything, so I was wondering if you had one? Garuda28 (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Garuda28: Yeah, noticed that as well. I was under the impression that it was done as an "easy way" to tell the ranks for an English speaking audience, since there (as far as I can tell) are no direct translations. But I do agree that the U.S. ranking is misleading at best. The lack of general sources on the rank page doesn't help much. I tried looking at the Army's official website, but it seems to be down and webarchive was no help. Best suggestion would to take the original Farsi ranks and Google translate them. Far from ideal, I known, but probably the best current solution. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Skjoldebro - I must ask WHY!! this ship is has now got the HDMS title. It was clearly never a ship of the Royal Danish Navy although the 1807 Privateer Regulations (in Denmark) allowed the arming and fitting out of privateers at Danish government expense.

Surely the correct title is Admiral Juel (1807 Danish ship) or, if this is insufficient, Admiral Juel (Danish Privateer). The prefix HDMS is simply wrong. Viking1808 (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Viking1808: yeah I made a mistake, I got it moved back to the original page. However, it should probably change name per WP:SHIPNAME. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I was wondering if you had created a Marshal of France rank for the AAE? I was doing some digging on the AAE rank histories, and it seems that all of the French Air Force ranks were just moved over from the Army. Garuda28 (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Garuda28: There is a Marshal of France rank for the air force? Didn't know. As far as I can see on the official website, there is nothing higher than the général d'armée aérienne. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I saw a mention or two about it on the en and fr Wikipedias (I was kind of surprised to), but I also don’t know how well sourced those are. Garuda28 (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Garuda28: Maybe there is a provision is some law that states that it is possible to be Marshal in the air force? In any case, I think I will wait until there is some proper sourcing. Skjoldbro (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I was just wondering, due to how inextensive the individual articles are for the different branches rank systems for both Chile and Egypt, would it not make more sense to merge the individual articles into a single article for each country? --Cdjp1 (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The same applies to Myanmar, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. --Cdjp1 (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cdjp1: Yeah, I have been thinking about it too, but never gotten around to it. I say go for it. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

There is a new image for USCG Intelligence, it's currently a png, not sure if it needs to be changed to a svg like all the others but, either way could you change the background from white to transparent for dark mode use? Cheers - wolf 21:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Also new images for Naval Intel and USMC Intel. Same request. Cheers - wolf 03:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Hey, I uploaded a png version of the File:Final ONI seal.png, SVG would be way out of my league, ditto with the marine ones. But I did make a SVG version of File:Seal of the Coast Guard Intelligence.svg and a proper SVG version of File:United States Intelligence Community Seal.svg. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks! - wolf 23:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey, how's things? I have another image question for you; would you be able to switch the backgrounds of this and this to transparent? Cheers - wolf 22:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again man - wolf 02:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I was just wondering, what happened to the NATO rank codes on all the pages? I know non NATO countries don't use it, but I was starting to get use to them on wiki. DarleenDolphin1 (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello there are new insignias being used. At least at this years 9.Mai Parade soldiers carry angeled stripes, not longer straight stripes. That should be recognised, therefore i put a new batch in the table. In Questions are ефре́йтор upwards to ста́рший сержа́нт.--Gonzosft (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Skjolbro, based on the the citations you've added it would seem that the Force Chief PO and the Chief PO ranks need correcting. Cdjp1 (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Skjolbro, you can also do field insignia for the commando squadron. DarleenDolphin1 (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear, wiki military history and heraldry community,

I formally apologize for my childish and douche betrayal of the wiki military history and heraldry community when I threw you all under the bus because my military rank page had to come down because wiki officially does not support such, "non-educational" and "non-informative" topics. I hope you all forgive me, if not, then thats your choice.

Yours truly,

The Island Survivor DarleenDolphin1 (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@DarleenDolphin1: I appreciate the apology, but don't really see any reason for it. I harbour no ill feelings for you. As for the NATO rank question; it was changed as it was (rightly pointed out by many) unsourced and OR. Hopefully, this change will make things more accurate for all. Skjoldbro (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Skjoldbro, just wondered if you could provide your input as to how best Military ranks of the Netherlands armed forces could be laid out so as to not look like the visual mess it currently seems to be. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2021

@Cdjp1: Hmm, good question. Maybe split the rank page into branch specific pages? But even then, I don't think there is there is enough text/info to justify this. Skjoldbro (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Good morning. I am a Korean Wikipedia user. Yesterday I updated the Template:South Korea documentation, and you put it back. The reasons for the update are as follows.

1. On February 23, 2016, the law of the Republic of Korea was amended. The form of the rank insignia has been changed. In particular, the shape of the insignia of the rank of NCOs has been changed (the lower leaves are changed from 4EA to 6EA: the shape is clearly different)

2. Sangdeungbyeong in the Republic of Korea Army are not NCOs(non-commissioned officers). Byeongjang, Sangdeungbyeong, Ildeungbyeong are all Enlisted. (NCOs are Hasa or higher)

3. Wonsu is not a 'National rank'. Wonsu rank is General officers.

Hope this helps. Thank you.--Pablin (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pablin: Hey, the first reason for changing the images back, is because the version you used was GIF versions, while SVG versions are preferred. Additionally, the templates are normally service uniforms rather than combat. Secondly (personally), minor changes to insignia could be negated if the image still conveys the same information. But if you can send me a link to the law/change, I am more than willing to try to improve the current SVG images.

As for point 3 & 4; these are groups are more for international comparison more than anything else. E.g. Byeongjang is enlisted, but is comparative to US Staff sergeant which is an NCO. I have changed the template layout back, but changed it on Republic of Korea Army. This way, it is still possible to compare ranks on pages such as Comparative army officer ranks of Asia and Comparative army enlisted ranks of Asia, while adhering to the national rank groups. Hope this answers your questions. Skjoldbro (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro: The #1 is search for '군인복제령' in Google. The #2, #3 times are disappointing. Wikipedia should convey the facts. if you want, I give up. (I'm sorry I'm not good at English.) --Pablin (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pablin: Thanks, I will have a look at it soon. Yeah, I guess. Do you have any suggestions as to how to improve showing comparative ranks for 45 countries or more? In any case, have a look at Republic of Korea Army#Ranks. I believe this to be an ok alternative, as it keeps the comparative template layout, but has your corrections on the specific page, along with your combat uniform images. Best Skjoldbro (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro: Thank you. Seems to be the best solution. Your hard work, Wikipedia develops. Have a Good day. --Pablin (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb5TLc2egj0 Lordsketor (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, this is apparently the approved USMC SEAC insignia -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey, I was wondering how you'd like to deal with rank translations (noticed you removed them on the French armed forces ones). I think that makes sense, especially since its so easy to read in English. What I did was just hyper link them to their appropriate article with a #France if possible (the same English article that the French wikipedia article is linked to, if ambiguous) to make things easy. How do you want to deal with countries like China and Russia, that aren't so easy to read, but have third-party sourced translations (like https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1082742.pdf) readily available? If you don't want to have the translation in the table, my initial thought is to still hyperlink it to the main article so its easy for readers to understand when they click on it. Garuda28 (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, on a side note, looks like the Albanian military police have their own rank insignia. Figured you may be interested (https://aaf.mil.al/images/pdf/gradat_PU.pdf).Garuda28 (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Garuda28: Thanks for that info, I will have a look at it in the near future.

I have been thinking about this for some time, and will now proceed to bombard you with all my thoughts on the matter (sorry). The primary reason for the removal was actually to find out how to handle translations, while also allowing for standardization, on English placement, i.e. France, or should we have a translation below? I'm kinda split, but I think I'm personally leaning towards English translations on rank systems with languages outside the Germanic and Romantic rank structure. Since, these are similar and can "easily" be understood in English. But that just leaves this weird difference, where 10-20 have direct links, while the rest have translations (with links).

On the general layout, I'm going to disagree with the last point in GraemeLeggett's 3 point posted at Template talk:Military ranks by country. As, if, templates are created in a standard "wikitable" format, each new language would normally be placed in a new row and not all together. But I do agree that English should be the last.

As for the translations, languages like Arabic and Chinese are the "worst". E.g. a "general" or an "admiral" are both called a "Fariq 'awal" in Arabic. Do we translate it to a literal definition or do we translate it to branch specific? Literal would only make sense in some European rank structure, as things like "a person who gives order" is not helpful to understanding the rank system. A branch specific translation is even more difficult with enlisted ranks. Because, do we then choose a US or UK centric translations? Is this the same for all countries, or only some? Staff sergeants are for example different ranks within these two systems.

"Official" translations are also 50/50. The official translations for the Royal Danish Navy follow the Royal Navy. However, a "Kontreadmiral" is more a Counter admiral than a Rear admiral. So which do we choose, the official or the more accurate?

This is a really good point - I'll follow your lead on this one. Ultimately we do have a counter admiral article, so its not an issue to link to it. It always seems to be the Navy ranks that are weird. Army/Air Force ranks are easy. Garuda28 (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

In general, I think that we should exercise caution, with both translations and links, as some might not be wholly accurate. As this allows for personal interpretation and preferences. Like with this template where more or less direct translations were changed to become more Anglo-centric. And I think this is the biggest problem with translations and everything else; it is simply not possible to take every rank structure in the world and say that it is either like the US or the UK. Personally, if there should be links, it should be where it makes sense and is accurate, and not at every possible rank.

Anyways, I know this is a lot, but let me know what you think. I would love to hear your opinion. Skjoldbro (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that makes a lot of sense. I've started to go through the NATO states because those are easy (and all Germanic and Romanic languages for the most part). My first thought would be to use English translations if provided, like the Albanian Armed Forces did - even if they conflict with the literal translations because they're officially sourced. Beyond that, I've been searching for English language publications that are using the ranks to get a read on the structure and matching them up - all of these seem to follow the same function, so its simple enough. Ultimately, its just hyperlinking them to pre existing Wikipedia pages which already exist most of the time. Officer ranks are easy. Enlisted ranks are giving me a lot more trouble, and I've been using NATO press releases and biographies in particular to try to ascertain the structure. Garuda28 (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I've seen NATO codes being removed from various non-NATO pages, I know many countries don't use them officially, but they are useful for cross referencing, finding equivalents, and comparing with other countries. Could you please restore them. Thanks.

Remember "not everything done with good intention is right and correct"

Mistah B (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Skoldbro.
In Talk:Police rank#Brazil and its relevance you wrote

If we include every single piece of information on this page, it would be impressible to navigate, with 200 countries all having 500–1000 words connected to them.

I'm pretty sure you meant "impossible" rather than "impressible", which would make no sense here. --Thnidu (talk) 14:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro:, The rank of second lieutenant is not being used in the Bangladesh Army anymore, newly officers are being commissioned as lieutenants like the Indian Army, I can't provide any source but this info is true. Sadek Mamun (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sadek Mamun: Unless there are Wikipedia:Reliable sources, information should not be added to Wikipedia. Skjoldbro (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro:, Okay, I am not adding info. Sadek Mamun (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sadek Mamun and Skjoldbro: Evidently the rank of second lieutenant is still in use in the Bangladesh Army. See JOIN BANGLADESH ARMY: RANKS & INSIGNIA:

Second Lieutenant

A Second Lieutenant is the junior most officer in a Battalion. He serves as the administrative officer or staff officer in an unit.

I retrieved this information just now, August 2, 2021, 1420 UTC. The page is "Copyright © 2021 BANGLADESH ARMY".

--Thnidu (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sadek Mamun and Skjoldbro: PS: Wouldn't this discussion (as well as many others on this page) be better located on the article's Talk page?

--Thnidu (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings at the top of this page. --rchard2scout (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

You deleted the citations I made to the proposals of USSF rank insignia that led more directly to the finally adopted insignia than any of the prior proposals. I don't see how you can call it unreliable unless you believe Reddit falsifies its timestamps? 96.250.80.27 (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@96.250.80.27: I think you need to reread the policy on what is considered a Wikipedia:Reliable source. Simply linking to these pages is not enough, and borders on WP:SYNTH. Additionally, Chignola re-made one of the design proposals, with "improvements". It is entirely possible, that the USSF made the same thought, independently. But again, we don't have any sources which states one way or the other, and therefore don't include it. Skjoldbro (talk) 07:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

If you read the subreddit you'll note his recounting of stages of development as permitted to reveal,and direct interaction with him by CMSSF Roger A. Towberman (u/spacewalla1).96.250.80.27 (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@96.250.80.27: Regardless of what the post might state, Reddit is not considered reliable and is unacceptable by wiki standards.Skjoldbro (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I uploaded SVG files for flat color insignia to Wikimedia Commons so you can put them in the chart on the USSF Insignia page (I don't know how to do it). These were the ones I used on the DoD Rank Insignia Chart that USSF pushed out, as opposed to the poster graphics I used on the chart/info sheet. Thanks for your help. Areoseph (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Areoseph: Great job, looks tons better than mine! I have cropped the images, hope that is ok. I have added your images to USSF Insignia page and other pages. Best Skjoldbro (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Skjolbro: No problem at all, I just figured we might as well have the originals on there for best congruency. And whatever you have to do to get them to fit is totally fine, I admit I'm not exactly sure how to format things right for Wiki! Thanks for keeping things up to date! Please let me know if you need any other other source graphics (I'm not sure what else it out there on Wiki) -Areo Areoseph (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Areoseph

@Areoseph: Well that is the great/terrible thing about wiki, there is always something to do ;) But if you like doing military rank insignia, you might want to have a look at all the national military rank pages. I know there are a lot of pages needing images. Otherwise, just browse around on pages, that you find interesting. Skjoldbro (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

So you are willing to take contributions from the man himself while deleting my mention of the role he played in the design of the insignia? 96.250.80.27 (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes? I think I made it pretty clear that Reddit is not reliable source and can't be used. If you find a better source you are more than welcome to add it again. Skjoldbro (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Does his uploading it to WikiCommons not serve as confirmation that he did indeed upload it to Imgur and link and discuss it on Reddit? 96.250.80.27 (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

That still doesn't make Reddit a reliable source, as I have stated before. You are welcome to take this discussion to the relevant talk page and plead your case there. Skjoldbro (talk) 11:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Skjoldbro, I would ask that you revert back to my last edits on the various Military Ranks of Poland.

The reason for this is because the old/reverted items are not fully correct, and are rather confused. For example, at the start of each table why is there a "service flag", but for the Navy it is the Polish Ensign, and for the Military Police it's the Polish National Flag. The Ensign is not a "service flag", please note the difference. Just like in the US, the Navy's service flag is something totally different than the US Ensign (that flag that goes on ships).

Finally, the rank of Marshal of Poland stems from the rank hierarchy of the Army, and the Marshal becomes the supreme commander of all Polish armed forces. However, it is not a rank within the Navy or the Air Force (there is no Fleet Force Admiral, or Marshal of the Air Forces). In other words only the Army has the O-10 rank, no other service branch in Poland.

So, please restore my last versions, because at this point, the presentation of the Polish Military ranks is confused and not particularily accurate. I just seems like folks added these items with out much concern for accuracy or clarity. --E-960 (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Btw, this source in Polish language, only lists Marshal for Polish Army, not Navy, and this source from the old archived official Polish Navy website only lists Admiral within its rank structure, and no Marshal. . Also, here: . --E-960 (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@E-960: Hey, one reason for the reverts of your edits, is because the army, navy and air force templates, are used on all rank templates. The use of larger symbols breaks with this along it looking exsessive on pages such as Comparative army officer ranks of Europe. Additionally, these flags are offical per law of 1993 on the symbols of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Poland, which was last updated in 2019.

For the rank of Marshal, as I stated in the edits: STANAG 2116 (both 6th and 7th edition) show that Marshal is OF-10 for the Navy and the Air Force. The STANAG is edited and approved by each idividual country, including Poland. As such, it appears that all information is realibaly sourced and accurate. Skjoldbro (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

On page 26 of the 1993 legislation, the Navy has an all red "service flag" (as visible Polish Armed Forces page). Perhaps it needs to be changed on the templates. Also, for O-10 ranks in the Navy and Air Fore, we could just write in "Marshal of Poland" instead of showing the shoulder boards, this way it strikes a practical compromise between the two interpretations, as the rank would still be listed for Navy and the Air Force, however it creates a visible difference that the rank stems form the Army side. I could be wrong but there is really no way for an admiral to become a Marshal of Poland. --E-960 (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@E-960: The red flag has now been added to the Template. Yes this might a good idea, since none (so far) has been made marshal from the other branches and we therefore don't know for sure what their insignia might look like. Skjoldbro (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, as agreed I've adjusted the discussed items on the page — many thanks. --E-960 (talk) 06:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Template:Hard Line (Denmark)/meta/abbr has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

G'day, I'm just curious to your rationale as to why you changed the rank tables for the Royal Australian Air Force. Though keep in mind I was the one who created the old rank tables and may have some bias towards them. IronBattalion (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@IronBattalion: Hey. I changed the table to the template, as it used throughout wiki, and ensures that updates or changes are instantaneous on all pages where it is used. It also has refs and removes NATO codes (which I have been unable to find sources for). However, if you have strong feelings for yours, feel free to change it back. Best Skjoldbro (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The reasoning I like the old tables is more to do with standardisation and aesthetic. For Standardisation, it is because I inserted the old rank tables into each and every one of the pages of the Australian Defence Force branches, and I would like to have them be as standardised as possible. The second reason is subdivided into two thoughts, for one that the old style had a uniform size and secondly the new codes (junior NCO... etc) for me implies that the ranks in the same bracket are similar and not hierarchical as is the case (It may trick the military layman). However the new tables do decrease the bytes on the page, which is sorely needed, and in my opinion I have a conflict of interest in restoring the tables to their previous form. Have a good day cobber. IronBattalion (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It was never my intention to change all the tables to my table layout that specific article was changed and i simply added my election table if there are any specific articles that you do not want me to touch a very willing to discuss the matter. Name me 5 10 20 50 articles that you do not wish me to touch and i will not touch them. As for the "discussion" it was not a discussion it was 3 people agreeing with each other ever since i joined here the only your person i had constant issues with was you its you that you have problems with my election table so talk to me dont try to bring other people in .Also i see that you have changed other tables and i have not touched them while you whenever i edit something you go in and revert it tell me how thats fair. If you have a problem with my edits talk to me i am willing to compromise but for the love of god don't go undoing my work simply because you dont like it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendlyhistorian (talk • contribs)

@Friendlyhistorian: You were pinged to the discussion. And yes, it seems like everyone, but you agrees, that your placement is not better, which would qualify as consensus. I have tried many times to get you to accept this, but without luck, hence the centralized discussion. You are welcome to go there at state your case. I find it funny that you complain about undoing my work simply because you dont like it, seeing as you have gone through almost every article (including ones I have worked on) and changed elections to what you want. Skjoldbro (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You changed jamaica and cuba and other Caribbean islands did i touch them and as i said before name me name me 5 10 20 50 articles that you do not wish me to touch do it why are you unwilling to do it ; Also you know the on the Korean article i did not change only the elections i did other stuff too you can look at my contribution history if you think i am a vandal or a troll tell them ban me but you know thats not true.

Is there any compromise that you are willing to do discuss ? Also if i ever touched an article that you did want to be changed just so you know i apologize— Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendlyhistorian (talk • contribs)

Because this is not a sustainable solution, it is not the way Wikipedia works and this doesn't don't create conformity and standardization. I given you many reason why the current standard is preferable, you have still not given any reason as to why you think your placement is better. But I would prefer it, if every page (former and current pages with elections the back) is changed to the correct placement and stays there. Skjoldbro (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

There are 195 countries in the world i doubt that you or me we will ever have every article my way or your way also we have lists of mayors governors there is no way i could change them all and doubt also the election positioning is not mine i just found it on some articles.

My point is you told me before that there is no Wikipedia Consensus some lists and sometimes articles will be written one way some article will be written in another way.Thats why i seek a compromise no offense but what you are saying comes off as "i want everything to be my way please fuck off" but if i want to change something i have to go to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion to do anything i dont think thats sounds fair . My solution is i stay away from certain articles and you stay away from certain articles with regards to election positioning you get something i get something i thing thats fair.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendlyhistorian (talk • contribs)

@Friendlyhistorian: That is not a good excuse for not at least trying to create standardization. is not mine i just found it Wait, so the only reason that you have gone through 100s of pages and changed the position, is just because that was the first position that you saw? There is no other reason for you doing it? Why? I mean, I have tried repeatedly to explain why the other is better.

There are local consensus (like South Korea, where elections were in the back SINCE 2012), but no site wide consensus. This is why I started the discussion, so there can be one for all of wiki, rather than us having to sit here, and discus what "we" think is fair, and which person should "have" which article. No, I don't think that it is unfair that you have to argue why you want to change positions after 9 years, for apparently no reason. Let me be clear, I have given many reasons (both visual, informational and historical) as to why I preferer the standard position. You have given no reasons for your changes, for what I consider a worse layout. So you must understand, that from my point of view; you are arguing that it is only fair if you get to make half of the tables worse. Skjoldbro (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Ethiopia political party shortname templates indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Gonnym (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Austria cabinet shortname templates indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you please make and upload the rank insignia of the Jamaican Police? Peter Ormond 💬 00:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks like all the rank insignia for Ethiopian officers may have been updated. The lions facing left and right makes sense if you remember the old imperial ranks of Grazmach and Qegnazmach (which literal translated as Commander of the Left and Commander of the Right). I don't have the SVG skills to design the lions but it would be cool if someone did. Do you know who might be able too? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: First of all, thanks for the help with the Amharic names for the ranks. It has been really hard to find any information in general on the topic, and I have been working with google translate, and copying the names from unclear images, without much success. Do you speak/read Amharic? If so, would you mind looking at enlisted naval ranks? And would you be able to find more/better sources?

As for the images, I might be able to create the lions, otherwise there is a number of excellent creators on commons, such as the original creator. Skjoldbro (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the Facebook source you linked works. It also does a correlation of the navy ranks' equivalents in the army ranks. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Done, but the columns are all screwed up now. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry you just spent time creating those army rank and file insignias but I just found this new source that shows changes as of yesterday: https://www.facebook.com/fdredefense.official/posts/1305322729986466 --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like they are phasing out the swords and replacing with lions and shields (those are round traditional Oromo shields). --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: I tried to fix the layout, but I might have messed up the equivalents. But I assume that the equivalents are for the old rank structure? It seems like it has changed.

It is fine with the images, I have moved the old insignia down on the page, and cleaned up the templates, so there is room for the new insignia. Skjoldbro (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Three NCO higher ranks are missing I think from the Facebook post images. I don't think they got rid of them. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hope you're doing well! Would you be willing to make a Service-colored variant of the USMC SEAC rank? Trying to standardize the enlisted rank insignia type for that template. Garuda28 (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello and good day sir I have seen you made many edits on the Tunisian military Ranks section and you put the french name of the ranks on the English wiki which is false can you restore the ranks to the English version Private Private First Class Corporal Master Corporal Sergeant Staff Sergeant Sergeant First Class Master Sergeant Sergeant Major Second lieutenant Lieutenant Captain Major Lieutenant colonel Colonel Brigadier general Major general Lieutenant general General please can you not put the french in English wiki and as Tunisian that is how our military ranks in English — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarthaginianReaper (talk • contribs) 01:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@CarthaginianReaper: Where are you getting that information from. Because the official website has no English language. Neither has this official website, nor this. Additionally, this law shows the ranks in French and Arabic. Skjoldbro (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

First I did serve in the Tunisian Army in 2014 and they teach me the ranks and 2 this website is in English http://www.emat.defense.tn/index.php/en/nco-training/training-eso and third, logically we cant put the french language in the English wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarthaginianReaper (talk • contribs) 15:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@CarthaginianReaper: 1. Regardless of you might have been taught, it is not a reliable source, which is very important on Wikipedia. 2. The website is in English, but there is not mention of the ranks. 3. Tunisia doesn't have English as an official language, and English translations are often inaccurate and misleading. Skjoldbro (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

English is 3rd language in Tunisia and is not mentioned on the wiki page doesn't mean it's not 3rd language and it's used by the Army. and I didn't translate them but used each rank equivalent in the wiki and with the help of http://www.uniforminsignia.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarthaginianReaper (talk • contribs) 16:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@CarthaginianReaper: You still haven't presented any reliable sources that it is used. And French is used as a 2nd language. Unless you can provide any sources to your claims, you are producing Original research, which is against the rules of Wikipedia. Skjoldbro (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro: this my source http://www.uniforminsignia.org

@CarthaginianReaper: Which isn't very reliable or official. In any case, there are multiple official sources for the French ranks. So I am going to reinstate the French ranks. Skjoldbro (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro: why not add the french language with English and it will be a middle ground solution

@CarthaginianReaper: The English ranks are already linked in the French ones. Additionally, the English ranks are not in an official language or reliable sourced and would clutter the template with too many languages. Skjoldbro (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what the specifics are on these, not found any details yet beyond these photos, so just sharing in case you can find anything on them.

• Second image of staff around a table, staff sergeant with a blue badge of wreath with something inside the wreath over the top of her chevrons
• Bombardier in the centre, I believe it may just be a gunnery qualification badge above her chevrons, but not sure
• WO1 badge, with crossed sword and baton in the wreath below the tower, in No1 Dress, No 1 dress again, No2 Dress, and No 4 Short sleeve dress
• Maybe Senior Sergeant Major No1 dress badge, not sure, Crossed sword and baton above the tower in a separated wreath, on some sort of background, and a scroll saying "Armed Forces of Malta" beneath it. Looks to be the same badge here, on the upper arm in No 3 Dress --Cdjp1 (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Can we talk about this its stupid to start an edit war message me at my talk page to find a solution to our dispute — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendlyhistorian (talk • contribs) 12:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It was never my intention to change all the election tables i am very limited to what i can do so i focus on stuff that are neglected also i think list are better without bold letters thats why i removed bold letter names from south west africa . If there have a certain number of articles you wish i do not edit i am more than willing to discuss that. I do not wish to engage in edit war could you please reverse you edits and discuss any issues you have on my talk page ; Friendlyhistorian (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I was looking at the List of national leaders of Belarus page, was trying to find info on an "Ivan Wasiliewicz" that you added as an acting First Secretary of the CPB. I couldn't find anything, do you remember what source you got it from? Or maybe his name is usually romanized differently? Thanks! Linshee ☺ 01:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Linshee: Hey, I vaguely remember doing it. I managed to find the guy Ivan Antonovich Vasilevich. Though, I don't know where I got the information that he served as acting. It might be because all pages with Gamarnik states he served until October 1929, and Gey from January 1930, Vasilevich being Second Secretary in that time period, resulting in a de facto leadership role, but I think I might have done some WP:SYNTH. Hope that helps. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a RFC on the usage of image2 parameter on infobox in Talk:Belize Defence Force#RFC on usage of image2 parameter on infobox. Your comments would be welcome. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I noticed you recently "merged" the pages One, Two, Three, Four and Five-star ranks (but not Six-star rank, Seven-star rank or 7-star rank) to the newly-created Military star ranking page. But while you blanked and re-directed all those pages, your didn't "move" any of the information from those articles to the new page. Instead, each former page now has a blank section with matching header on the new page, and each with an "empty section" template message. That's not really "merging", but more like page deletion, as all the information from those articles is now gone. My initial instinct was to revert, but as we've collaborated in the past and I seen you make many worthy contributions, I thought I would check in with you first and see if you intended to make further changes, or do anything more with content from those pages, to remedy this situation. Cheers - wolf 17:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Thanks for reaching out, though I wouldn't hold it against you if you did undo my "merge". I do plan on doing more, the problem for me, at least right now, is the finding any WP:RS. I initially thought of just asking for an AFD for all the pages, as it is seemingly all WP:OR, but thought the whole thing was too integrated into other wiki articles. So, as discussed previously, I thought this might be a better solution. If you look at the old versions of the 1-4-star rank pages, there is between 1-4 source per page, and nothing really related to the subject of star-ranks itself. If you have any sources or any other solutions, or just want to undo it feel free to let me know. Skjoldbro (talk) 11:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

If you wanted to continue with the merges, you would probably need to move all the content over from each page (from the histories, just prior to making them re-directs) to each corresponding section on the new page, marking each move as a merge for attribution, (and I believe you might also need to get an admin or page mover to do a histmerge for each page?) Then once you have all the content in place, start tagging: cite needed, etc., and perhaps post a notice at milhist to see if anyone wants to help expand and source any of the sections of the new page.

-OR- if you're unable, or not interested, to put the effort into seeing this idea through right now, then just do five quick reverts and put the pages back the way they were... for now at least.

I think you kinda need to do one or the other becuase you can't really just leave them the way they are now. Perhaps do the reverts, move the "Military star ranking" page to draft, and buy yourself time to work on that page as well as the other pages as prospective sections. This way, you also don't have to bother with any AfDs. (JMHO) Cheers - wolf 15:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Thanks for the suggestions. I might just do the second one. I think the first one is too much of a hassle. Cheers Skjoldbro (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

What is a RS source? Creuzbourg (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Creuzbourg: Wikipedia:Reliable sources, if you are referring to the Czechoslovakia, the references are were mostly blog posts, which isn't accepted. For the page, there should be an aim to get good sources, like some books. Skjoldbro (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

They weren't blogposts. Have you checked them. These were images of the same class that you produce (good job, by the way). Although no sources from where the creator got the information. Creuzbourg (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Creuzbourg: you are right, they many of them were from www.valka.cz/, which uses uniforminsignia.net at its source. And while uniforminsignia is a fun and interesting page, it unfortunately also doesn't count as a RS. Skjoldbro (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey Skjoldbro, hope you're well. I actually have two questions;

1. could you take a look at this image on Commons, it has two annoying borders on the sides (the left is visible, the right is just a sliver). I believe this image was already cro–pped, but it wasn't a very good job. Would you be able to crop that image to clean-up those borders?
2. I see you created an article titled: Military star ranking a few weeks ago. Do have plans to edit this page further? (expansion, clean-up, etc.) Just curious.

Take care & Cheers - wolf 06:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild:

1.  Done
2. Yeah, my issue right now is finding sources. As you might have noticed on the regular star rank pages, there are no RS on any of these. So finding any supporting information is difficult. Skjoldbro (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Armies/OF/Abkhazia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Armies/OF/Artsakh has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey Skjoldbro, I believe you have made a mistake on some of the Dutch armed forces pages The flag that has been recently added to them by me is not a special flag for government buildings but instead it is the new flag designated to these branches after the operation the government started to modernize and unify the government logos. If you would like to research it I suggest visiting www.rijkshuisstijl.nl the website for this new branding of the government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander vee (talk • contribs) 22:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Alexander vee: Per offical Ceremonieel & protocol both flags are used, with your flags explicitly stated as Huisstijl Defensie. Further, as far as I can read (granted not very good) from this source (p. 6-8), the flags are only for government buildings. Additionally, I personally, find it close to impossible that the government and military would go along and change their military heritage to flags that look this corporate. I don't think you will find any ships in the Navy actually flying these flags. However, I could be wrong. If you have any official sources to state your view, other than a bare URL, I'm more than willing to be proven wrong. Skjoldbro (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Saw the revert of the image used on the XM250's page. I had originally changed it because the png version seemed weirdly out of focus unless you opened the image in a separate window. Maybe it's a problem on my computer's end but I saw the same issue with other devices. Since the png and jpg version are derived from the same US DoD image, I figured we wouldn't be losing much if we used one version (the jpg) over another version (png). Is there any specific reason to use the png over the jpg? Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 22:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jasonkwe: Hey, sorry hadn't seen that you had changed the image. I haven't noticed any problem with the image, I think it might be because of the cropping exacerbated by the "negative space" of the rifle, with the jpg file having a higher contrast background. Personally, I prefer png, as you can have transparet backgrounds, removing the white background that appears in infoboxes. Additionally, there is the issue of compression. When placed in an infobox, the jpg image becomes compressed and appears pixilated. You can read some about it here. Skjoldbro (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro No worries, I just wanted to ask your opinion. Yeah, I know of jpg's lossiness but don't know quite as much about its compression. I've seen others on wikimedia preferring png as well and the transparent background capability makes sense. I haven't seen any of the issues with pixelation in infoboxes but it might only happen with certain machines? I'll try converting the DoD's base version of the jpg into png and see if I can get it so it doesn't have that out-of-focus look in the thumbnail. If I can get it to work, I'll try swapping it out and will tag you on the edit. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 15:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro I tried making my own png version of the image and ran into the same issues. Seems like it's been noticed before but it doesn't seem like there's any clean fix for it (as far as I can tell) https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T192744. Oh well. Jasonkwe (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Why did you replace the perfectly fine rank insignia files with your own creations? They are worse than those who were there first! Check Mollo and you will see that the generals rank insignia doesn't look like your images. Creuzbourg (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Creuzbourg: I didn't know why you had replaced them, as there was no reason given in the Edit summary. Additionally, GIF files are more compressed and can't bee vectored, which is why SVG is desirable. Don't know which Mollo ref you are referering to but I believe the ranks are accurate according to Václavíček 2010. Furthermore, what are you referering to in regards with the ranks looking completely different? There is almost no difference between the GIF files and the SVG apart from the fact that the SVG files aren't pixilated. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro: I am referring to Mollo: The Armed Forces of World War II and the general's rank insignia. See: Mollo, p. 79, fig. 83. You may think I am nitpicking, but I think its a waste of your considerable talent to change GIF to SVG. Why not finish the gallery at Forest Protection Service instead? Creuzbourg (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

For reference here is the correct page of Mollo on Archive.org, looking at the image, there is no issue between it and the svg files in use. Cdjp1 (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I believe you know template coding. Can you do something about this? In every non-Nato OR template, one extra rank (senior among NCOs) appears among JCO ranks. For example, in Indian Army template, Havildar, who is an NCO appears among JCO. Any idea how to fix it? The Doom Patrol (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to use the Ranks of the Imperial Japanese Navy page for reference purposes, and your revision on August 23, 2022 seems to have resulted in the loss of info on what are the generally-accepted English language equivalents of the ranks, which made the page useless for me on this occasion. I consider this to be an important function of an English Wikipedia article on foreign concepts.
I noticed there are some other info such as "Lord high admiral of the Japanese Empire or Admiralissimo (the title used only for Emperor of Japan)" , "Fleet/Marshal/Grand Admiral
(the title used for some Admirals with achievements)", "The line was thinner as the Warrant Officer's rank insignia before 1942 for the Special Duty Officers." or "Before 1942, three cherry blossoms were added below the stripe for the Special Duty Officer." which could be very useful on some purposes, that your revision eliminated. As your edit seems to be based on a good faith intention to improve the page, I would appreciate your reverting the eliminations. Thanks. Yiba (talk | contribs) 05:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload files. However, it appears that one or more of the files you have uploaded or added to a page, specifically Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Air Forces/OR/Belize, may fail our non-free policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted file of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Skjodbro. File:Belize Defence Force infoboxflag.svg was uploaded to Wikipedia as non-free content which means that each use of it needs to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. More specifically, there are ten non-free content use criteria that need to be satisfied each time non-free content is used. One of these criteria is criterion #9 which states that non-free content use may only be used in the article namespace; this means this is not allowed to be used in templates like Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Air Forces/OR/Belize, Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Armies/OF/Belize, Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Armies/OR/Belize and Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Air Forces/OF/Belize. This is why the file was first removed from those template by a bot and then subsequently removed by myself after the file had been re-added.

I'm not sure why you think this file is a "free image", but "free" in this context means "free from copyright protection". It's possible that you thought the file was OK to use because you uploaded essentially the same file to Wikimedia Commons as c:File:Belize Defence Force infoboxflag.svg, but that file has been tagged for speedy deletion as copyvio over on Commons. Since the two file names are identical, the Wikipedia software will always choose to use the local file uploaded as non-free content even when you want it to use the Commons file. This situation is called "shadowing" because the Commons file is sort of hiding from the software in the shadow of the local file and there's really no way around it as long as the two files are named the same. So, if you think the Commons file should be kept, you should explain why on c:File talk:Belize Defence Force infoboxflag.svg. However, you should probably carefully read c:COM:L, c:COM:DW, c:COM:Own work and c:COM:NETCOPYVIO because it seems like that you would not be considered the copyright holder of the original imagery which your version is closely based upon.

Anyway, everytime you re-add this file to one of these templates, it will subsequently be removed by either a bot or a human editor; so, the best thing to do would be to sort of the licensing concerns over at Commons and try to establish a consensus that it should be kept. If the Commons file is ultimately kept, the local file here on Wikipedia may need to be tweaked in some way (a file name change) so that the shadowing problem can be resolved. If you continue to try and add the local file to the template, one of the administrators who runs the bots set to look for non-free content being used inappropriately will eventually notice and may decide to block your account as a result. So, please don't try to re-add this file again until after the Commons file's issues have been resolved. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Since the pictures we had of the Vietnamese ranks have been scrubbed due to copyright, the images can still be seen in this capture on the Wayback machine for reference, we'll need to work at creating representations of he ranks that don't hit the Vietnamese copyright. I don't have time at the moment for the work, but may be able to have a go at it in November-ish. Cdjp1 (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello friend,

Please let me know how I can help (once we have confirmation) in updating the rank files of Commonwealth realms. The changes will come eventually and there will be a lot to do. You have taken good care of them all and have contributed greatly in this field (Thank you!). I will follow your lead, tell me what to do. Sodacan (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

On the Cabinet of Bárður á Steig Nielsen page shouldn't the party names be the English language names? Lankyant (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey Skjoldbro, are you able to correct the color of this SVG image to dark blue (color code #163759)? That way we can put it back in the Timeline of changes section of United States Air Force enlisted rank insignia article. Neovu79 (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Neovu79:  Done. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me for bothering you, but what do you mean by "nothing in Brazilian sources that indicate the use of the star terminology" on Military Star Ranking?

Are you referring to citation 13, or 14?

Our official government websites of the Brazilian army does not explain the star terminology, but rather, it only shows the ranks of general officers, senior officers, intermediate officers, junior officers and non-commissioned officers. None of our government websites explain the ranks of either graduates or officers.

If that's what you're referring to, tell me I'll personally remove Brazil from the article.

-Luiz Zignani Luiz Zignani (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I've seen both shoulder and sleeve Insignias given in USA & UK Navies' template. That's why I preferred giving both insignias here. I hope you'll understand my point. Litton123 (talk) 07:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The Moroccan Air Force Colonel-Major is incorrect. Its the colonel stripes with a crown per the below link https://www.maroc.ma/fr/actualites/4eme-salon-international-de-laeronautique-et-du-spatial https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smKqwTmJSrE Lordsketor (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Head of the Donetsk People's Republic, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Head of the Donetsk People's Republic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Your recent edits are unsourced so will be reverted. Egeymi (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

The English names I edited for the Finnish military ranks are official and in use when working with allied and partner nations and an official source was provided. Deleting informative content from public view like that seems a bit odd. Could you explain the "clean up" ? 185.151.78.52 (talk) 05:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@185.151.78.52: I have "cleaned up" to the standard layout used on every other rank template, e.g. see Comparative army officer ranks of Europe. There more than 1500 templates, where English is only used when it is an official language. Skjoldbro (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I was reading this article this afternoon and was a bit confused by the images of seals (and captions), which you added in July 2020. The text of the article says that the German Empire office was only a thing in Alsace and Lorraine. The German Wikipedia uses the left image on de:Reichsstatthalter, which is solely about the Nazi Germany office, and its Commons categorisation might suggest that (commons:Category:Sealing stamps of Reichsstatthalter is a subcategory of Sealing Stamps of the Third Reich and is distinguished from commons:Category:Sealing_stamps_of_Kaiserlicher_Statthalter_in_Elsass-Lothringen, which seems to be what the German Wikipedia is using on the German Empire etc article). On the other hand, Chinese, Japanese and Turkish Wikipedias use it on what may be the Third Reich article, but all of those could have got it from here. I might be missing something though, so I thought it would be better to ask you than to just delete the captions. 92.19.18.31 (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OF/United States (old) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Skjoldbor. I stumbled up this Admiralinde de Hamilton. Having started a list of Danish admirals, do you have any idea who she was married to?Ramblersen2 (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

You say you removed the delrev because the discussion is closed. It appears to have only been opened yesterday, and remains open. You might want to put that back. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: Thanks for the heads up. I thought that it was the older discussion closed on 14 October. Skjoldbro (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

YW. I thought it was probably just that. Cheers. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi

I saw you're merge proposal. Also see my merge proposal at Talk:Council of People's Commissars of the Soviet Union#Merge article to Government of the Soviet Union? about merging the COuncil of People's Commissars with "Government of the Soviet Union". TheUzbek (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Skjoldbro, just wondering why you reverted changes to first letter capitalisation of rank names at this edit of RAAF OF ranks? KarmaKangaroo (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@KarmaKangaroo: To fit with the page names, standard as with every other rank template as well as MOS:MILTERMS. Skjoldbro (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro Thanks! I hadn't seen that. Always looks wrong to me after my time in the ADF.

Interesting how the first sentence and the first dot point could contradict each other, given the ranks are always Capitalised in the ADF in all sources, so there's no uncertainty, but the point below contradicts that.

> The general rule is that wherever a military term is an accepted proper name,

as indicated by consistent capitalization in sources

, it should be capitalized. Where there is uncertainty as to whether a term is generally accepted, consensus should be reached on the talk page.

• Military ranks follow the same capitalization guidelines as given under § Titles of people, below. For example, Brigadier General John Smith, but John Smith was a brigadier general.

KarmaKangaroo (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I changed the ranks as I felt the US approximate equivalents were not accurate and didn't really relate internationally. Therefore I thought direct translations would be more universally acceptable as the US is only a very small percent of the world. Thank you and hope you find this helpful. Brigadier Guff (talk) 06:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Brigadier Guff: Wikipedia is built on Reliable sources, as such removing things that are sourced, should generally not be done. Additionally, to the WP:NOPIPE, you will also notice that each native name is linked to a page of direct translation.

As such your edits removed sourced content and linked something that was already linked a line above, which is completely unnecessary. Hence why your edits were reverted. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, your point is valid but I still think the very approximate equivalents are limited to a very small readership - ie just USA.

Surely something more international would be a vast improvement.

Thank you Brigadier Guff (talk) 10:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Brigadier Guff: US equivalents is extremely limited, but it is however reliable sourced. If you can find any other reliable source, with anything else, feel free to add it. As it is, the linking to the direct translation is still there for the reader, in no way limiting availability. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

This has been interesting chatting to you.

I will definitely try to find an equivalent that's more international.

In the meantime how about both - your equivalents and an English translation as not everyone would bother to look at the native linking.

Thank you for taking the time to chat. Brigadier Guff (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing the Translations?

I feel it adds to the transparency and inclusivness of the page and am quite saddened that you feel it necessary to continue the pettiness of removing it.

I was under the impression that Wikipedia was meant to be all inclusive and I feel you are limiting this.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. Brigadier Guff (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

As stated multiple times, Wikipedia is built on Reliable sources, so things need to be proberly sourced. Additionally, there are also still the issues of WP:NOPIPE and MOS:OVERLINK. None of these things have been fixed since the last edit, therefore it was removed again. Skjoldbro (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, rather than just delete the edit off hand, why not offer to help correct the attempts of someone still trying to learn Wiki editing.

Thank you Brigadier Guff (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, rather than just delete the edit off hand, why not offer to help correct the attempts of someone still trying to learn Wiki editing. Brigadier Guff (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Back in 2022 I stated the question "Hey Skjoldbro, I believe you have made a mistake on some of the Dutch armed forces pages The flag that has been recently added to them by me is not a special flag for government buildings but instead it is the new flag designated to these branches after the operation the government started to modernize and unify the government logos. If you would like to research it I suggest visiting www.rijkshuisstijl.nl the website for this new branding of the government." to which you replied "@Alexander vee: Per offical Ceremonieel & protocol both flags are used, with your flags explicitly stated as Huisstijl Defensie. Further, as far as I can read (granted not very good) from this source (p. 6-8), the flags are only for government buildings. Additionally, I personally, find it close to impossible that the government and military would go along and change their military heritage to flags that look this corporate. I don't think you will find any ships in the Navy actually flying these flags. However, I could be wrong. If you have any official sources to state your view, other than a bare URL, I'm more than willing to be proven wrong. ", I am extremely sorry for my absence of a reply, but I had to deal with a sudden family death. It seems like you have made a misunderstanding in the text, while "huisstijl" directly translates to "house style", its English equivalent is something along the lines of "brand guide" or "visual identity". Below is a list of your claims and my counterarguments.

1.per c&p both are used:Correct, but the non-corporate looking ones are "old, only for building use flags" and the other ones are the official ones

2. stated as huisstijl defensie: huisstijl refers to "brand guide," I inform you of this as a fluent Dutch speaker.

3.only for gov buildings:I guess partly due to lack of understanding of the word huisstijl and also, in the document ceremonieel & protocol, the last sentence before the image States that the old flags may still be used on military complexes. Old refers to the flags you consider the current ones, I believe this because of the upload dates and naming conventions of Wikimedia Commons user d'arch's images, and the overall image behind these flags and the new government identity.

4.corporate look: This was already a compromise, they all would have looked like the top flag on your magazine source with that same blue logo. But, as the same article states, the minster refused to fly that flag and the headquarters flew the Dutch flag until they came to agreement on personalized orange logos and unique flags.

5. navy does not fly these flags:Correct, they fly the Dutch national flag.

Alexander vee (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro Also, two more things. Most dutch defense complexes I have recently passed by or visited have replaced the old flag with the new one on the building, one example is the Marechaussee in Zevenaar, Netherlands. Second, most other Wikipedia pages in Dutch have been updated to my point of view by other users.

Thank you, Alexander vee (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Alexander vee: condolences. As for the subject. If the both images can be used, why not keep the current images, what do the change improve? There is historical understanding and precedence for the "old/current". Additionally, the "old/current" are all used in military relations, not civilian designed, with the added fact that they are all individually recognizable. I doubt any can actually tell the difference between the Navy, Air force and Marechaussee flags, as they are all blue/white flags with an orange stripe and small hard to see logo. If they are simply a "Brand guide" instituted by the government, what is to say it won't change again in 1-2-3 years? I can not see anything on the NLD wiki, they are also using "old/current" flags along with the "corporate" logo. If you still feel like the "corporate" flags are an improvement, you are welcome to start a discussion on the relevant talk pages and get Wikipedia:Consensus. Skjoldbro (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro I see your point, though I believe the flags are here to stay because the entire government has since updated to this style, and they probably wont have a giant overhaul soon. They are also being heavily phased out of service and soon, the old ones will most likely be completely be removed. I believe that phasing them out on wikipedia (especially the more visited pages) over some time is a good approach to slowly change it. (all flag lists continue to use old flags along with the current onesto show that both are in use). Is this phase out method something we can agree on? Alexander vee (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro also, the flags can be used in bigger applications and the Dutch wiki uses them mostly on lists of flags, while the rest is still the old style. Hope to hear from you soon about this and my previous comment and have a great rest of your day and new year. Alexander vee (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro Also, it would be good to start generating awareness. Hope to hear back soon. Alexander vee (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Alexander vee: I still don't see the value in changing the flags. The current flags all have historic value, are within the rules and are distinct. The "corporate" flags are not distinct, readers will have trouble telling them apart. If the old flags are removed from use, then it would only make sense to change it. However, I have noticed a mistake, the previously linked "offical Ceremonieel & protocol" is no longer valid and the current "Ceremonieel & protocol" makes no mention of either the old style or the Huisstijl Defensie, as far as I can tell. They make vague references to e.g. "vlag van de KLu", without specifying what variant they are talking about. Skjoldbro (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

As a side note. You might not believe that the style will change, but per this source (p. 8 afb. 1) it has already changed once. Skjoldbro (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)