This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
military of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
I've decided to include the activities of the old 4th Infantry Brigade in the History section to give context to the formation of the XV Division, as well as add citations.
Dragases (
talk) 10:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)reply
15th Infantry Regiment (Greece)
With more detailed information now available from reliable sources (cited in the article), I recommend the page be renamed or moved to 15th Infantry Regiment (Greece) to reflect the official reorganization.
I confess, it's been a while since I modified any pages here, so I'm not comfortable doing this. If anyone reads this and can do it, great (and Thanks!).
Dragases (
talk) 06:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)reply
First off,
thanks for your expansion of the article. Second, I can do the move, but my question is: a) has the brigade been officially renamed as a regiment, or does it retain its name but with regimental size, and b) was there not already an unrelated 15th Regiment? If so, then we should split this article into three: one for the 4th Brigade/15th Division, one for the 15th Brigade, and its current role would be merged into an article on the 15th Regiment.
Constantine ✍ 07:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)reply
There was an unrelated 15th Regiment in the Hellenic Army (disbanded many years ago), so I refrained from making any significant changes to the article until I had some solid information (I'm not in Greece, so I'm limited to online searches). The citation I provided gives an indication that it was to be renamed, but this confirmed it - http://www.newsbomb.gr/ellada/ethnika/story/420777/paradosi-paralavi-dioikiseos-toy-15oy-syntagmatos-pezikoy-xv-mp. I've not put this citation into the article (feel free to do so).
Dragases (
talk) 07:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)reply
OK then, I'll have to consider how to best do this, I'll see if there are similar cases elsewhere.
Constantine ✍ 07:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Much appreciated. I'll try to dig up some information on the disbanded 15th Infantry Regiment. Perhaps that will give us something to go on...
Dragases (
talk) 08:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)reply
I've made a
query at MILHIST to elicit some more opinions, as there appears to be not clear practice in this regard.
Constantine ✍ 12:03, 26 July 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm probably the military unit and formation specialist, and have answered at length on the main talk page. This unit should be moved to its most recent title, per MILUNIT. THat's the 15th Inf Regt. Now the 15th Inf Regt has previously been active. So the 15th Inf Regt has been formed twice (or three times, or whatever). Set up two separate sections in the article, with descriptive headers (World War II, or Cold War, or Twenty-first century, or whatever) and keep the two or more existences separate. Make sure there are lots of redlinked cross-references to the units that originated them (brigades, divisions, or whatever). Does that help? Cheers
Buckshot06(talk) 03:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
In essence, Constantine's suggestion of 07:47 26 July above is correct, with lots of cross-references. The resulting articles may be stubby and short for a while, but will grow in time.
Buckshot06(talk) 03:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Thank you both. The Greek Army unit articles have been without references for ages, which was a major issue - that you're fixing!! Also, in line with
WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME (third paragraph), designations should follow the local convention. All Greek division designations are Roman numerals (eg XX Armoured Division, not 20th Armoured Division). Feel free to discuss moves of units to the indigenous designations, provided we follow the
WP:Reliable Sources. If the RSs - priority Greek sources - all say XX Armoured Division, it really should be at XX Armd Div rather than 20th. Cheers and again very many thanks to you both.
Buckshot06(talk) 22:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Thank you. Regarding the numerals, it is not so simple. First, internationally, the typical format is commonly used to refer to Greek units (Arabic numerals for divisions, Roman for corps, etc.), so that plays a role. Second, the Greek system cannot be reproduced accurately, because the corps use Greek numerals, for which the closest equivalent would be the Roman numerals rather than "A Corps" etc. Third, Greek usage is not entirely consistent either, with a few divisions being designated with Arabic numerals. I'd prefer to keep established practice so far in this regard.
Constantine ✍ 07:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Thanks for that. If the corps are standardised on Greek lettering, I would rather go with that and use the correct symbols (we can set up lots of redirects as required) but it's your field and WP does this in a very decentralised way, so would not want to overrule you two. What are the symbols in question? -
Alpha,
Beta,
Gamma etc? I ask this because these are used as standard on star designations etc - standard scientific terminology.
Buckshot06(talk) 21:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Corps numbering/lettering in the Hellenic Army are Greek letters (Α, Β, Γ, Δ, Ε). I've noticed that Roman Numerals have been used for these in WP. The question is, given it's English Wikipedia, are there rules against using the Greek lettering, or do we use the transliteration (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon) - which can be quite cumbersome? The problem is if we use Greek lettering, how does a non-Greek user search for a particular Corps? Like
Constantine mentioned, inconsistency with the Greek unit designation has always been a problem.
Dragases (
talk) 03:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)reply
A non-Greek user would use either "G" Corps or "Gamma" Corps, and get redirected to
Γ Army Corps (Greece). That would be my view.
But
WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME says '..A name originally in a language other than English should be adapted by translating common terms (such as designations of size and type) and transliterating the remainder of the name. The choice of which components of the name are to be translated (and how) should follow the conventions employed by reputable historical works on the topic; some collected recommendations for specific terms are maintained by the relevant national task forces. The original name should be provided in the first sentence of the article, following the translated name; for example: The 3rd Mountain Division (3. Gebirgs-Division) was... or Boden Fortress (Swedish: Bodens fästning) is....
Names should generally follow the stylistic conventions used by the service or country of origin. For example, while US and British usage has spelled-out numerals for army-level formations and Roman numerals for corps, editors writing about different countries should follow those countries' normal usages; thus, "3. Panzer Armee" becomes "3rd Panzer Army", and "18-ya Armiya" becomes "18th Army".
Now, you two are blazing the trail here after previous over-enthusiastic over-English-afying. How do you two wish to handle Greek corps designations, especially given the line about following the conventions employed by reputable historical works on the topic? Personally I think the original names should at the very least be in the first line as per the guideline.
Buckshot06(talk) 04:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)reply
I recommend we start with breaking-up this article into three/four articles and see if the format works. If it does, then we can begin to tackle the other Greek units' articles (and any consistency with the unit designations). Are we in agreement that there should be four stubs/articles?
Dragases (
talk) 06:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Excellent. Then I defer to you,
Constantine. If you can split-up/create the stubs, I can modify the content and also see if I can find more information about these units and start to build-up the articles. I also agree with
Buckshot06 - we should feature prominently the original designations in the first line/paragraph of the article. Cheers!
Dragases (
talk) 12:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Completely agree with Dragases - start with these four pages, that's just fine. Corps and other designations can wait. Just make sure everything is well referenced is the key thing, in line with
WP:RS. Feel free to ask my help as you wish. Finally,
WT:GREECE should be notified for any other Greek input.
Buckshot06(talk) 20:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Should I assume that Greek divisions were two-brigade organisations originally, and thus redlink in the 1st, 2nd, and
3rd Infantry Brigade in the 1st and 2nd Division articles? Also, wouldn't the 15th Brigade have been part of the 8th Division in the 1900s ish period?
Buckshot06(talk) 06:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Yes to the first, but there were only three divisions in the 1900s. The 8th Division was not formed until the First Balkan War.
Constantine ✍ 06:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)reply