Talk:British Armed Forces

Exercise Steppe Eagle

It would be nice if Wikipedia had an article given over to Exercise Steppe Eagle. 31.52.255.111 (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that you start the article in your sandbox, and add some references so that other editors can help you write the article. Adding reliable sources will help determine if the topic is notable enough for an article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Cadets

This article could have a short section summarising the different cadet forces of the UK. Should it have one? --Dreddmoto (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

They are not a part of the British Armed forces. If they are, and when/if become one day branch of the armed forces can be added one short section summarising them. 109.93.121.223 (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

109, I see what you mean. Thanks. --Dreddmoto (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

1. In the infobox, for the "conscription" parameter, it was simply noted as "No", without a source, going back awhile. Then on 1 August 2021, a source was added and "No" was changed to "None since 1963", by JLavigne508.
2. On 23 October 2021, that was changed to "Inactive since 1963" (while keeping the same source), by Sgweirdo.
3. On 14 November 2021, it was changed to "Abolished in 1963" (again same source), by IP user 2a02:c7e:3aa0:9200:e92b:4ab:2ef9:3a01 (talk)
4. On 30 November 2021, user Nubia86 blanked the parameter altogether, with the edit summary: "Optional for infobox, age and term if any about conscription yes otherwise redundant.
5. As this info (& source) were not found anywhere else in the article, their edit was reverted with the edit summary: "removal of sourced content as "redundant", but it doesnt seem appear elsewhere in the article".
6. Nubia86 again reverted, (thought this wasn't actually a revert, they clicked "undo" then made a different edit). They again added "No" in the parameter, along with the same source as before, this time with the edit summary: "Pretty clear situacion, yes or no, if yes age and term of conscription. That is it by infobox template.".
7. Again, their reasons for their actions and this content change weren't exactly clear, so the page was reverted back to quo again, with the edit summary: "your summaries are not that clear, and discussion via back-and-forth summaries is not an option, so pls state your concerns on the talk page, thx".
8. Instead of stating their concerns on the talk page, they again reverted (for the 3rd time in 19 hours), with the edit summary: "Totally clear edit summaries. Check infobox template. And what goes under conscription. Some concern? Start talk page discussion".
9. After posting a personalized message on their user talk page, reminding them both of wp:brd and wp:ew, they replied with:
   Moved from User talk:Nubia86 § British Armed Forces
   "I didn't make any single mistake in my edit, that is it. Infobox template is pretty clear about what goes under conscription, it is age and term, if there is conscription. In British case things are clear, no conscription and that is enough to be noted. In general it is minor edit.".

My response to Nubia86 was to encourage them to discuss this issue. They mention that their edits are "clearly" supported by the template documentation, which of course is just that, and not a policy or (afaict) a guideline or matter of consensus. That have thus far refused to engage, until I posted a message on their talk page, and following that have so far refused to engage on this talk page. I would like to know: why all the reverts, (different reverts at that) and why remove useful and sourced information from the article completely? Why the difficulty getting them to discuss this? Surely this can be resolved with a simple friendly discussion, no? Thanks - wolf 04:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Sir oh please, show where the rules are broken and what exactly is my "crime"? Do Brits have conscription, no? Good, no is noted already and that is pretty enough for infobox. And the case about The UK is clear. In a case to they get it one day would be age and term as it is case almost in all other infoboxes. Tnx. Nubia86 (talk) 05:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Or to we start linking everything and anything into infoboxes, for example: Boris Johnson PM since 2019? Someone could find that also as a really useful info and easy to obtain some source for that. Or why to say conscription abolished from 1963, maybe better to put active from 1916 to 1920 and then 1939 to 1963? Infobox should be clear and simple thing to avoid complications and to make current status easy to understand. And in this case "infobox template documentation" is clear and I must say logical: "conscription – optional – The conscription age and term." Especially when the case is clear, no draft registration or so and the United Kingdom case is clear indeed. Nubia86 (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I just listed a series of edits and asked why you felt it was so important to remove that information that you had to resort to edit warring. Some information is better than (virtually) none. I asked for an explanation, and instead you post a lengthy, hostile, sarcastic rant. Since nothing was accomplished here, the article is back at quo. Feel free to seek dispute resolution if you like. - wolf 16:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry your "good faith" edits are not improvement so it must to be reverted. I just can't go against "infobox template documentation", it is clear and I must say logical: "conscription – optional – The conscription age and term." Oh btw, the conscription ended in 1960, not in 1963 acc to the source. Anyway, only what matter is about now, is it enforced conscription or not, and what is age and term of service. I would understand totally if this case is not clear so it needs to be explained more detailed, for e.g: some form of conscription exists in some law but not enforced or something like that. In that case it is good to be more detailed explained also in infobox. Nubia86 (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nubia86: (forgot to ping. You said "pay attention to the talk page", hope you're doing the same, re: below message. - wolf 05:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC))

Well, if you would like to add additional, (and correct) content, with new sourcing, to the article body, that would be a possible solution, as the extra details would then not be needed in the infobox. But as for "infobox template documentation", as I said, it's not policy, it's simply guidance. And as the history shows, there is a consensus here in support of the quo version, and template guidance doesn't override consensus. (imho) - wolf 17:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed the edits you attempted to make earlier. Was this what you were trying to do? - wolf 05:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, something like that. Maybe that is totally fine solution. If you think that could work I agree. Nubia86 (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, the point was, and this appears to be shared by those other editors, was that this information was useful. I was opposed to it being arbitrarily removed. With this edit, the information is retained so I am fine with it. - wolf 09:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Infobox Royal Navy vs Naval Service

In the infobox, the Royal Navy (linked as shown) is listed as a service branch. Would it be more accurate to list HM Naval Service as the service branch or would this cause confusion. AWN08 (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)