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)

Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (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)