Talk:1st Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Brigade

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: British / European 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 This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

@

@

Thewolfchild here you are for the format quick talk: (took me forever to find it for reference, but here). I thought it was on this page for some reason, but it was actually on my talk page. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

wolf 22:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

wolf 08:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: I apparently wasn't "subscribed", so didn't receive the tags or anything, I dunno it's stupid sorry for the late reply. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @

Thewolfchild, for some reason I didn't get your tags. So... No. 1 you're right in the sense that the "spoiler format" I'm referring to having the structures in a collapsible table (type) format. I'm not sure why you think this is a problem, as it's used on several pages: 3rd (United Kingdom) Division, 43rd (Wessex) Infantry Division, and 1st (United Kingdom) Division to name just a few. So this helps get rid of a million bullet points, and this way you can just select which one you're looking for instead of trying to find something in a super long list. No. 2 I might have used the term "consensus" wrong, and I apologise, but I meant by that that I had seen a couple pages having used it and it was seen as expectable since it was used on many pages including the ones I listed above. No. 3 you're correct, this isn't a discussion, and by no means is it final and wouldn't mind discussing it, but I was trying referring to that fact that that system has been used and is being added on several pages. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

wolf 21:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

May I request than, for the reason explained on WP:MOSCOLLAPSE, that (we) make a discussion regarding our separate opinions on this on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Discussion. The reason I'm asking is because like I said, I know that several division pages have them, and since I'm working on making "lists" to transfer information from including TA units in 1961, and noble titles, I'd like to discuss this before I actually do it now. I know that @Rickfive uses the spoilers quite often also, and he in-fact completely revamped the 43rd Division's pages and added those, so I know we see eye-to-eye there. Especially considering the orders of battles and structures can be long, the fact that they shouldn't be used (normally) doesn't really make sense to me as it just looks ridiculous that way normally. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

wolf 22:27, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]