Talk:British Army Hierarchies - Revision history

Mia: Added link to talk page

2014-11-19T19:27:59Z

Added link to talk page

GavinRobinson at 19:12, 19 November 2014

2014-11-19T19:12:20Z

Mia at 18:27, 19 November 2014

2014-11-19T18:27:48Z

Mia: Discussing command structures

2014-11-19T18:25:18Z

Discussing command structures

GavinRobinson at 10:29, 19 November 2014

2014-11-19T10:29:37Z

GavinRobinson at 14:38, 7 November 2014

2014-11-07T14:38:11Z

GavinRobinson: Created page with "Some basic information explained in more detail than is possible in Google Docs comments. I'll add more examples later.--~~~~"

2014-11-03T13:02:40Z

Created page with "Some basic information explained in more detail than is possible in Google Docs comments. I'll add more examples later.--~~~~"

New page

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

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:27, 19 November 2014
Line 49:		Line 49:

	: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?--[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 11:12, 19 November 2014 (PST)		: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?--[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 11:12, 19 November 2014 (PST)
		+
		+	:: As we're getting down into the detail of the infoboxes I've made a talk page to keep track of discussion at [[Template talk:Infobox command structure]] --[[User:Mia\|Mia]] ([[User talk:Mia\|talk]]) 11:27, 19 November 2014 (PST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:12, 19 November 2014
Line 43:		Line 43:
	\| subordinate =		\| subordinate =
	}}</nowiki> --[[User:Mia\|Mia]] ([[User talk:Mia\|talk]]) 10:27, 19 November 2014 (PST)		}}</nowiki> --[[User:Mia\|Mia]] ([[User talk: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?--[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 11:12, 19 November 2014 (PST)

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 :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.--[[User:GavinRobinson|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk: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':
+:: 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':
 <nowiki>{{Infobox command structure
@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 | parent =
 | subordinate =
-}}</nowiki>
+}}</nowiki> --[[User:Mia|Mia]] ([[User talk:Mia|talk]]) 10:27, 19 November 2014 (PST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:25, 19 November 2014
Line 34:		Line 34:

	: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.--[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 02:29, 19 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.--[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk: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':
		+
		+	<nowiki>{{Infobox command structure
		+	\| name =
		+	\| date =
		+	\| parent =
		+	\| subordinate =
		+	}}</nowiki>

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:29, 19 November 2014
Line 32:		Line 32:
	****Regiment/Corps: Royal Engineers		****Regiment/Corps: Royal Engineers
	--[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 06:38, 7 November 2014 (PST)		--[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 02:29, 19 November 2014 (PST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:38, 7 November 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Some basic information explained in more detail than is possible in Google Docs comments. I'll add more examples later.--[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 05:02, 3 November 2014 (PST)		Some basic information explained in more detail than is possible in Google Docs comments. I'll add more examples later.--[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk: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
		+	--[[User:GavinRobinson\|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson\|talk]]) 06:38, 7 November 2014 (PST)