Difference between revisions of "Talk:British Army Hierarchies"
m (Discussing command structures) |
m |
||
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) | :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 | <nowiki>{{Infobox command structure | ||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
| parent = | | parent = | ||
| subordinate = | | subordinate = | ||
− | }}</nowiki> | + | }}</nowiki> --[[User:Mia|Mia]] ([[User talk:Mia|talk]]) 10:27, 19 November 2014 (PST) |
Revision as of 11:27, 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
- Record Office: CC Cavalry Canterbury
- Arm: Infantry
- Record Office: F Lichfield
- Regiment/Corps: Leicestershire Regiment
- Regiment/Corps: Lincolnshire Regiment
- Record Office: O York
- Record Office: F Lichfield
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
- Record Office: RE Chatham
- Arm: 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)