User talk:Skjoldbro/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Canadian ranks

I see you reverted some edits on the Canadian rank templates to show Sergeant as OR6/5 and Master Corporal as OR4. The same edits from the same account were made to the article on Canadian ranks, which I reverted. Now, I don't have access to 6th or 7th edition 2116, but looking at the charts in 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions the edits made moving Sergeant to OR6, MCpl to OR5, etc. were correct according to the historical documents. At least to my reading of them, hence why I'm here, just wanted to run it by you to see what your read of the previous 2116 editions is?

The confusion would seem to stem from how in previous editions Sergeant was counted as OR5, if the person had less than 3 years service, otherwise the rank was OR6. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Cdjp1: The most current version can be found on the official website.

It looks like it was 6th edition, where Canada opted for a structure closer with the UK; removing Private Recruit. Which makes sense, most nations only have privates for OR-1 and 2. Skjoldbro (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

On heads of goverment election positioning

Hi Skjoldbro sorry to bother you . Hear me out on the List of heads of government of Bulgaria i did not change it randomnly if you look at the list of heads of states of Bulgaria it has the same election positioning . I am not just doing this for the lols ok . Its idiotic for the head of goverment and for the heads of state to have diffrent election positioning . You can look at my wiki acount history i have just modified and standardized articles with heads of states and did not modify the position of the elections Friendlyhistorian (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Friendlyhistorian: You are right, they should be the same. I have therefore changed heads of state to the standardized election positioning, which is most common, so it is in line with heads of government. Thanks for pointing it out. Skjoldbro (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Come one Skjokldbro there tons of articles that are not that way i already gave you one example . Having the election at the front makes no sense . Cantg we discuss this ? Friendlyhistorian (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

There are many articles like this like the List of prime ministers of Australia the east timor list , the zambia list , you can even look at the history of the heads of state of bulgarian i have never edited apart from the positioning of the royal houses Friendlyhistorian (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Friendlyhistorian: I can give you just as many examples with elections in the back, with a longer history of use and more widespread. But sure, why should they be in the front? What is achieved with this? How is it better? Skjoldbro (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

First of all thanks for hearing me out . Ok so my take on this issue is since we are dealing with an elected position . When you first chek a list you would like to see the most improtant information . Since you are a more experiance editor it might seem petty to you but it really looks better when you a name then the election and then rest of the information . I speak as someone who loves reading wikipedia its really easier on the eyes . Another focus i have is making pictures just a bit bigger as well . Friendlyhistorian (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Aslo i speak as someone who loves politics the average person will not just randomnly looks at a list of prime ministers of DRC . So i try to improve those lists as much as possible . I am not really that good at finding sources and writing large texts . But just how you tend to focus on military ranks . I tend to focus on political lists as well as election results i worked on that a lot as well . Friendlyhistorian (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Friendlyhistorian:

1. Better looking is debateable. I would argue it is worse looking at the front, because as you very well know, sometimes there aren't elections. Just look at the page you just edited List of heads of state of Bulgaria. The first thing that come after name, is start date (for kings), and the below, suddenly there is an election between those two. The same for List of presidents of the Dominican Republic. Name-start date, then Name-election-start. It is even worse at List of heads of state of Ghana or List of heads of state of Sierra Leone, here it changes between start date and election every new table. You are welcome to think that is better looking and "easier" on the eyes, but I would argue that this kind of inconsistency is exactly the opposite. Consistency is "easier on the eyes", just like knowing where things are. When start date keeps moving around, it gets very confusing.
2. If you look across all of wiki, on every single officeholder table (civilian, military, ministers, head of gov etc.), what will be the information that you will always find? Image, Name, Start date, End date, Time in office. Agreed? This is information you will always be able to find no matter?
   Therefore, this is the most important information, because this is the centre of every table no matter what. As such everything else in tables are "nice to have" and should come after this central information. This will also create consistency throughout all wiki tables.
   Going one step further. What does every political officeholder have? a political party? Also agree here? Then that should come after the central core information. Then afterwards, final we can have elections, as this is something that is not used for every political officeholder. Skjoldbro (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello Skjoldbro ok let me respond to this . The reason the lists you mentioned are diffrent is because the list is broken up . Also we are talking about nations that has coups and civil wars . Sierra leona has 5 coups Ghana 5 and the Dominical republic 10 and to add to that Sierra Leone and Ghana went from monarchy to republic . Its kinda hard to put an election table during a period of military dictatorships or monarchies . The three nations you mentioned have a history of instability as i mentioned before to add to that many contries have a long history but break up their politcal periods for example looks at the El slavador presidential list . Another issue you say that ever list has Name, Start date, End date, Time in office but thats not really true in many of those lists it was me or other editors who but that in . In some cases certain lists names were placed in front of the names . And there was a drama a long time ago cause someone put sortable tables in certain lists . The idea that there is some short of univershall standards for list is wrong . As for the election issue here is the thing you can look at something like the list of prime ministers of samoa or New zealand where even when there is not an election you do have the parliement that the office holder was sitting But we cant put that in many lists due to those nations being presidential republics . Every countries has its own issues when it comes to this ok its not simple . Friendlyhistorian (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Friendlyhistorian: Right, it is hard to put elections during mil-dictatorships. Meaning that elections can't be the most imposant thing, hence why it shouldn't be at the front. Just like I also agree that many nations have had instability, but that doesn't mean that above listede tables with changing layout isn't confusing and inconsistent, only another reason to have the elections further back.
And I'm not saying that "Pic-Name-Time in office" is the usual order. I am however saying that these informations are the central information at every list concerning officeholder, no matter what. Or are you suggesting that is possible to create any list of officeholders without this information?
The central pieces of information is available on every list no matter if it is about civilian, military, minister, head of gov or head of state. This is a fact, even if there has been instability, civil war, coups or going from monarchy to republic. Wouldn't you agree? And since this is the central information, it should always be presented first. Skjoldbro (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is the thing ok no matter what i say you will say what you believe because this is wikipedia and thats how editor are . It does not matter how many examples i show you it does not matter what i say . You will say what you want to say and nothing will change. You are trying to convince me that in modern head of state or head of government list the election should be at the back . you complain about the tables being different yes every article is different look at the prime ministers of isreal for example its bad . But i cant make it like the uk one or the french one i can make it similar but i have my limits . As for the information listen election are important okay i started editing in 2018 and i clearly remember many many articles having the postioning at the front . And it was way worse in terms of consistency . Listen if you think i am wrong ok just look at the List of prime ministers of Australia its a featured article . But no offence it does not matter what is say and if we are going to talk about my edits . In some of your edits you put the color at the front near the party name and in others like in the cuba article you leave it at the back . But again it doe not matter cause whatever is say you will say i am wrong thats how wikipedia is Friendlyhistorian (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Also sorry for responding like this but like your refuse do engage in any argument i make . I dont edit randomly i have studied other lists and i have tried to improve them i dont just add stuff for no reason Friendlyhistorian (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Btw if you are tired of this its ok we can discuss it some other time if you want Friendlyhistorian (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Friendlyhistorian: I'm sorry you feel that way. I would have thought I have tried to listen to the points that you have made and ask follow-up questions to things I found inconsistent and to better understand. I hope that you will do the same. For discussions to be fruitful, there need to be objective and civil exchange of ideas which helps people to grow and reflect on their own personal beliefs.
I never said that elections weren't important, just that there are some which is more important. My central reasoning is pretty simple (I believe): the most important and central information should be first. That central informations at the simplest is "Name-Term". A claim that I have attempted to prove with various points. But I will try to visualize:

Name	Dates
Bob	1910-1930
Jeff	1930-1950

As you can see, this is really all that is needed to have a list, this is the central and most important information, everything expands on these two. In principle, all list pages on wiki could be changed to this and the reader would still be able to have idea of what is happening. You seem to disagree with this. Why? Skjoldbro (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response . I just got very sad by all of it . I know it wont matter but i will say this it is true that some things are more important than others but in an list where we are talking about elected people i think they year were they were elected is kinda of important . Friendlyhistorian (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Friendlyhistorian: You are right, it is kind of important, but there are other things more important. Or maybe you believe otherwise? It's a fair belief, but how would you argue that?
I don't believe tables should be structured around what "looks good", because who get to decide that? You? Me? On what criteria? What is to stop someone from putting "political party" in the front with the reasoning that is looks better?
Table should be structured logically, where readers can expect consistency. There are 205 sovereign states, if we pretend that every country has one head of state, one head of government, 10 government ministers, one chief of defence, and three military branch chiefs, we get 16 officeholder lists per countries and 3,280 lists in total (This does not include historic offices, agencies, NGOs etc.). Out of all these, every one of the 3,280 lists will have time in office. Assuming that every head of state/gov is political, 2,050 of the 3,280 list will have political parties, and only 410 of the 3,280 lists will have elections. Logically, it should go from most common to least common. Wouldn't you agree? If not, why? Skjoldbro (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

And you are wrong, I'm more than willing and able to change my mind if the arguments are good and logical. Are you? Skjoldbro (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay let me adress this to explain my perspective . Frist of all i apologize for the delayed response i was editing and i was also also kinda of dealing with some issues . When i started being a wiki editor i did it cause i saw that that many political parties did not have election results and gradually started adding election results in many africa parties and later branched out to other countries .The i shifted towards doing lists specifically modifing them and eithe adding pictures or adding stuff like coups symbols like cross for when someone died in office adding political parties . When i use that table i am using something that was already there way before i started editing . I joined wikipedia in 2018 there are articles with that election positioning from 2015. Now cause i know you will bring this up i undo your edit on the Paraguay list . There many lists that you have done and you dont see me going and change it to my standard in fact i alway check a list to make sure you have not edited it in the past . There are many list latin america lists that are this way . Including Mexico , Panama and Honduras if you can go randomly and undo my edits then i can theoretically do the same on articles you have worked for like the List of presidents of iran or the various ministries of defense that you have edited . Ok now back to the main question I did not pick that election positioning on that table style btw i am refering to the tables not being sortable and the party color being in the same column as the numbering . Its what i found when i started editing wikipedia and stuck with it . Friendlyhistorian (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Friendlyhistorian: But why do you keep insisting on sticking with it? It wasn't the most used, and even if it was, is that a good reason? So, in principle, would you make all the same arguments, if you had seen elections in the back first? And just because I haven't personally added elections in the back, doesn't mean that they should just be moved. Because if that was the only factor that meant anything then I should also be allowed to change elections to the back on articles where you haven't added it, right? Skjoldbro (talk) 06:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok i have another reason but before i say it let me be clear that i didn't do this way just because i actually did comparisons also i think wiki editors should be able to make choices that you might not agree with regarding editing . Anyway some elections need symbols so being that position makes it better for example some elections are referndums so i put a C temple on the legend about the table so like you can see the meaning of the symbol with the election when you reading up close . Also listen i am the only one i do remember a time when you tried to change a list i think it was yemen it was year ago and there was another editor who reverted you edit so i am not the only one ok . Friendlyhistorian (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Friendlyhistorian: When have I ever said that editors can't make choices that you might not agree with? Because I agree. That is why I have now started a Wikipedia:Centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. That way we can get opinions on other editors and gain Wikipedia:Consensus. Please participate so all arguments are heard. Skjoldbro (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

You know thats not fair cause the majority of editors do not bother with lists so its gonna be your word as someone with thousands of edits vs me who is a semi regular editor about a niche thing .Cause like said it does not matter what i will say. You are just trying to force me to give up and you know it and i know . I never touched the pages you edited . but you do go after the pages I edited . You know what you are doing and pls stop leaving messaged in 3 diffrent talk pages we talk here or my talk page . Friendlyhistorian (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Also the reasons you are doing this is that you will 2 or 3 editors to agree with you and then all the articles will be changed cause now you can say . "Ah see we have consensus so it should be done my way " Friendlyhistorian (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Also i would like you ask you question ? why are you doing all this what have I done to you . Friendlyhistorian (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Friendlyhistorian: You are right most people don't bother, which I wrote on a page where people should have an interest. I don't think people should care about which editor have the most edits, but only look at the arguments. Looking only at edit counts is not a valid reason to decide anything, and I don't believe that any editors would do that. Wikipedia:Consensus is one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars, I don't really see how trying to follow the rules is bullying. You are encouraged to participate, maybe other editors will even side with you, rather than me. I have nothing against you, and never have, I do however, find placing elections at the front a disservice to readers. I see no advantage to it, and so far, I have not heard a single compelling argument for it. Hence why I would like clarity on it from more people. Also please note that Wikipedia:Canvassing exists. Skjoldbro (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems like you think every edit is against you and unfair. Wikipedia:Consensus exists and I think that you should follow it. Apart from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics discussion, I will not participate in this discussion anymore. Congrats.
As a closing, I think you should attempt to work on your debating skills, maybe read List of fallacies, this will help you here and elsewhere in life. Skjoldbro (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Listen i dont thing that . there many changes that have been that i dont like but i have not raised an issue . Its that that this is my bread and butter . I think you mean well and you have good intentions . Its just they way you have responed to some of my arguments feel really bad . Maybe its language barrier i dont know Friendlyhistorian (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I think i am willing to make an agreement but i need to know this apart from the election positioning do you have other issues in regards to my edits ? Friendlyhistorian (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Voting for coordinators is now open!

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) 06:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Armies/WO/South Africa

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Armies/WO/South Africa has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Navies/WO/South Africa

Template:Ranks and Insignia of Non NATO Navies/WO/South Africa has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Register your vote here by 23:59 UTC on 29 September! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Military rank insignia of Lithuanian Armed Forces

Hi, thank you for sharing these rank insignia images - they’re excellent, and I really appreciate your work on them. As part of the Ministry of National Defense’s recent “rebranding” initiative, Lithuanian heraldists have transitioned from gold to brass for rank insignias. This update, documented in an order from the Minister of National Defense of the Republic of Lithuania, was made to better align with the darker shades of the new uniform compared to past versions. The brass color helps maintain a cohesive, modernized look with the updated uniform standards.

If possible, please consider this adjustment for complete authenticity in your images. Thank you! Bellkass02 (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, Skjoldbro, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Revert of removals of IDF ranks

Hi Skjoldbro, as a notification, I've reverted your recent removals of the IDF entries from numerous articles on military rank. Your edit summary simply claiming they were "irrelevant" is unhelpful and does not adequately explain the removal of what is in some cases sourced information; particularly since the ranks *are* relevant. If this is in regards to some wider discussion, I'd be happy to hear more about it, but as it stands it has the effect of looking like an edit motivated at vandalizing content referring to Israel, which I hope was not the actual intent. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Swatjester: Thanks for the heads up. This has nothing to do with the wider issues currently ongoing, and is simply about consistency. As to the edits, you might be able to explain, how 1) e.g. רב-סמל מתקדם is related Sergeant major, other than being a "Corresponding rank"? Lots of ranks are corresponding, that doesn't mean that should warrant inclusion. 2) What information is conveyed in the sections, other than the ranks existence? For Sergeant major, you didn't restore the one line "Sergeant major exists in Indonesia" How is the IDF section any different? 3) Apart from no proper information given, it also fails to include any sources. Thanks. Skjoldbro (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

רב-סמל מתקדם is not related to Sergeant major; however it directly translates to "Master sergeant" which is why it is unclear why you removed it as an "irrelevant corresponding rank" from the Master sergeant article. It's not a corresponding rank, it *is* the rank. The argument makes more sense for the other two articles, now that I see where you're going with it (in that it's not a *literal* translation as it is for Master sergeant, and I was mistaken about that in my edit summary), but does not make sense for the Master sergeant one. As to the other reasons, it was sourced on the Master sergeant article, and whether or not information beyond the rank's existence is included doesn't seem to be a reason for removing it -- certainly a future editor could expand upon it. I'll self-revert back on the Sergeant major and Chief warrant officer articles, but as mentioned I believe it was correct to include on the Master sergeant rank article. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I think including anything other than litteral translations can be misleading and confusing. Official translations might change over time and are based on whether the country has a UK or US relation. The Danish Sergant is officially translated as Petty officer, inclusion at Petty officer would only cause confusion. Plus, most rank pages have a history/etymology only related to the page name. But I appreciate the discussion. Best. Skjoldbro (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)