User talk:Skjoldbro

A old question from 2022

Back in 2022 I stated the question "Hey Skjoldbro, I believe you have made a mistake on some of the Dutch armed forces pages The flag that has been recently added to them by me is not a special flag for government buildings but instead it is the new flag designated to these branches after the operation the government started to modernize and unify the government logos. If you would like to research it I suggest visiting www.rijkshuisstijl.nl the website for this new branding of the government." to which you replied "@Alexander vee: Per offical Ceremonieel & protocol both flags are used, with your flags explicitly stated as Huisstijl Defensie. Further, as far as I can read (granted not very good) from this source (p. 6-8), the flags are only for government buildings. Additionally, I personally, find it close to impossible that the government and military would go along and change their military heritage to flags that look this corporate. I don't think you will find any ships in the Navy actually flying these flags. However, I could be wrong. If you have any official sources to state your view, other than a bare URL, I'm more than willing to be proven wrong. ", I am extremely sorry for my absence of a reply, but I had to deal with a sudden family death. It seems like you have made a misunderstanding in the text, while "huisstijl" directly translates to "house style", its English equivalent is something along the lines of "brand guide" or "visual identity". Below is a list of your claims and my counterarguments.

1.per c&p both are used:Correct, but the non-corporate looking ones are "old, only for building use flags" and the other ones are the official ones

2. stated as huisstijl defensie: huisstijl refers to "brand guide," I inform you of this as a fluent Dutch speaker.

3.only for gov buildings:I guess partly due to lack of understanding of the word huisstijl and also, in the document ceremonieel & protocol, the last sentence before the image States that the old flags may still be used on military complexes. Old refers to the flags you consider the current ones, I believe this because of the upload dates and naming conventions of Wikimedia Commons user d'arch's images, and the overall image behind these flags and the new government identity.

4.corporate look: This was already a compromise, they all would have looked like the top flag on your magazine source with that same blue logo. But, as the same article states, the minster refused to fly that flag and the headquarters flew the Dutch flag until they came to agreement on personalized orange logos and unique flags.

5. navy does not fly these flags:Correct, they fly the Dutch national flag.

Alexander vee (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro Also, two more things. Most dutch defense complexes I have recently passed by or visited have replaced the old flag with the new one on the building, one example is the Marechaussee in Zevenaar, Netherlands. Second, most other Wikipedia pages in Dutch have been updated to my point of view by other users.

Thank you, Alexander vee (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Alexander vee: condolences. As for the subject. If the both images can be used, why not keep the current images, what do the change improve? There is historical understanding and precedence for the "old/current". Additionally, the "old/current" are all used in military relations, not civilian designed, with the added fact that they are all individually recognizable. I doubt any can actually tell the difference between the Navy, Air force and Marechaussee flags, as they are all blue/white flags with an orange stripe and small hard to see logo. If they are simply a "Brand guide" instituted by the government, what is to say it won't change again in 1-2-3 years? I can not see anything on the NLD wiki, they are also using "old/current" flags along with the "corporate" logo. If you still feel like the "corporate" flags are an improvement, you are welcome to start a discussion on the relevant talk pages and get Wikipedia:Consensus. Skjoldbro (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro I see your point, though I believe the flags are here to stay because the entire government has since updated to this style, and they probably wont have a giant overhaul soon. They are also being heavily phased out of service and soon, the old ones will most likely be completely be removed. I believe that phasing them out on wikipedia (especially the more visited pages) over some time is a good approach to slowly change it. (all flag lists continue to use old flags along with the current onesto show that both are in use). Is this phase out method something we can agree on? Alexander vee (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro also, the flags can be used in bigger applications and the Dutch wiki uses them mostly on lists of flags, while the rest is still the old style. Hope to hear from you soon about this and my previous comment and have a great rest of your day and new year. Alexander vee (talk) 02:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Skjoldbro Also, it would be good to start generating awareness. Hope to hear back soon. Alexander vee (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Alexander vee: I still don't see the value in changing the flags. The current flags all have historic value, are within the rules and are distinct. The "corporate" flags are not distinct, readers will have trouble telling them apart. If the old flags are removed from use, then it would only make sense to change it. However, I have noticed a mistake, the previously linked "offical Ceremonieel & protocol" is no longer valid and the current "Ceremonieel & protocol" makes no mention of either the old style or the Huisstijl Defensie, as far as I can tell. They make vague references to e.g. "vlag van de KLu", without specifying what variant they are talking about. Skjoldbro (talk) 09:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

As a side note. You might not believe that the style will change, but per this source (p. 8 afb. 1) it has already changed once. Skjoldbro (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Søren Pape Poulsen

On 5 March 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Søren Pape Poulsen, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 22:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

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)