Difference between revisions of "Talk:British Army Hierarchies"

Revision as of 11:12, 19 November 2014

Some basic information explained in more detail than is possible in Google Docs comments. I'll add more examples later.--GavinRobinson (talk) 05:02, 3 November 2014 (PST)

I think parent-child relationships in the British Army admin hierarchy will need to be as flexible as for tactical formations. Being able to skip a level in some cases will save unnecessary duplication, complication and confusion, but all levels will be needed in other cases.

This is a rough example of some of the top end of the British Army:

• Service: British Army
  • Regiment/Corps: Royal Engineers
  • Regiment/Corps: Army Service Corps
  • Arm: Artillery
    • Regiment/Corps: Royal Garrison Artillery
    • Regiment/Corps: Royal Horse and Field Artillery
      • Regimental identity: Royal Horse Artillery
      • Regimental identity: Royal Field Artillery
  • Arm: Cavalry
    • Record Office: CC Cavalry Canterbury
      • Regiment/Corps: Corps of Dragoons
      • Regiment/Corps: Corps of Lancers
    • Record Office: CY Cavalry York
      • Regiment/Corps: Corps of Hussars
  • Arm: Infantry
    • Record Office: F Lichfield
      • Regiment/Corps: Leicestershire Regiment
      • Regiment/Corps: Lincolnshire Regiment
    • Record Office: O York

It seems pointless to have the following just for the sake of representing every level:

• Service: British Army
  • Arm: Engineers
    • Record Office: RE Chatham
      • Regiment/Corps: Royal Engineers

--GavinRobinson (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2014 (PST)

Now looks like admin relationships will need to be even more flexible: record office can be above, below or at same level as regiment/corps.--GavinRobinson (talk) 02:29, 19 November 2014 (PST)

Are administrative relationships relatively stable (if they are mostly to do with recruitment areas, for example)? In which case it might make more sense to have two command structure infoboxes; the tactical one is more likely to be repeated for a given battalion. In Template:Infobox command structure I currently have the below, which could be adapted to be 'Infobox administrative command structure' and 'Infobox tactical command structure':

{{Infobox command structure | name = | date = | parent = | subordinate = }} --Mia (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2014 (PST)

Definitely a good idea to distinguish between tactical and administrative as they're different things that could confuse people if they're not kept apart, and administrative will probably irrelevant to some nations. Administrative can change sometimes, but tends to be less often than tactical. (eg 21st (Reserve) Battalion Lancashire Fusiliers, British infantry changed regiments.)

At this stage separate infobox templates will work because battalion is the lowest level to have a page, but if you want to futureproof against going down lower than battalion, you might need a different approach because the relationship of a company to its parent battalion is administrative and tactical at the same time. To cope with that, maybe have one command structure infobox with a field representing the type of relationship, whose value can be administrative, tactical or both. That would also futureproof against any other kind of vertical relationship that no-one has thought of yet, and cope with any nations whose admin hierarchy is effectively the same as tactical (if there are any). Either way, it's important to keep the infoboxes showing each type of relationship grouped together and not mixed up.

Would it be practical to show grandparent too? Knowing a battalion's brigade and division is very useful information. Will parent/child relationships need to be entered in both pages, or is there a way for one page to automatically pull them out of the other?--GavinRobinson (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2014 (PST)