Talk:Para (Special Forces)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit Summary[edit]

@GhostOfNoMeme: I did not understand your edit summary here in this edit care to elaborate what you want to be fixed ? --DBigXrayᗙ 03:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I felt like the *s before each item were a failed attempt at markup syntax; maybe a bullet-ed list? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I have not seen a list formed in this way, with * before each item, unless it is a bullet-point style list. I tried to "correct" the issue I thought I saw, and obviously didn't succeed. Have I misinterpreted what I've seen? GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GhostOfNoMeme, Thank you for the quick reply. I believe it was originally started as a bulleted list and the list got elongated which made the infobox look bad, so someone simply newmoved "BR" new lines to make it a paragraph. I feel the best course of action now would be to remove the and replace it with comma. User:Adamgerber80 what do you think ? --DBigXrayᗙ 04:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXray: Yes a comma separated list is fine and we should definitely cull the list to manageable levels. Currently it includes everything under the sun which is ridiculous. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GhostOfNoMeme and Adamgerber80, I have replaced the aestrics with comma. I do agree, the list should be reduced and the content should be taken to the article body int he functions section. I didn't do it as I am undecided what to remove and what to keep in the infobox. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Joint exercises with other nations[edit]

PARA SF operatives, conducting weapon training, with US Army Green Berets assigned to 2nd Battalion, 1st Special Forces Group (Airborne) at Joint Base Lewis–McChord and Camp, Rilea, Oregon as part of annual joint training exercise 'VAJRA PRAHAR' on January 2018.

An IP added this image but has been removed by User:Thewolfchild can we discuss this here, if it is possible to include it back to the article. I feel this image is useful in this article. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: I have no objection to it being re-added, with a proper caption (incl links and refs if needed), by an editor that knows what they're doing. - wolf 07:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Thewolfchild, thanks for the kind reply, Pinging User:Adamgerber80 to discuss the caption and refs. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:03, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXray: The IP editor clearly didnt know what they were doing as they took a dozen edits of practice and tests, until they left it as is. This left me with little confidence their final edit. You should be able to review the image and caption and determine if it's suitable or needs improvement, without the need of assembling a committee to discuss it. If you're ok it - add it. If it needs something - fix it. You're certainly experienced and qualified to handle this on your own. - wolf 08:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wolf, I think it is entirely understandable that the IP user took a series of edits to get this image and caption right. There is no hurry on my side, Burger is a page regular and I would like to discuss the referencing. cheers. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no... we have sandboxes for noobs to practice in and we have a preview function in the edit window so people don't use a dozen edits to get things right. Basically, open edit window->make changes->check with preview before saving, lather->rinse->repeat, that way, there should actually only be a single edit in the history, not 12. Discuss whatever you like with whomever you like, I've explained my revert and stated I have no objections to the image itself... just wanted the caption done properly. I trust that you and whom all you may gather here for that purpose will do the job satisfactorily. - wolf 18:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DBigXray: I am very familiar with the image since it was uploaded by me earlier this year. However, I chose not to add the image here since it is unclear if it is a Para SF member or not. The image is from Vajra Prahar which was conducted at Base Lewis-McChord in January 2018. The press communiques (of the Exercise[1] and the image release[2]) are vague and only specify that the Special Forces are from Southern Command. Now the Para Special Forces are attached to the Parachute Regiment of the Indian Army and it is unclear how they rotate under the various Army Commands. Plus there is no identifying insignia on the person. My recommendation is to add this image to Special Forces of India and not here. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Chamb 1971[edit]

@Vaibhavafro: Major K.C praval, an Indian author himself has written that the 9 para commando brigade was involved in the Battle [3], it can be read at [1], if there is any unreliable or unnecessary information in the section then only that information should be expunged, deleting the entire section should not be done.- سب سے بڑی گڑبڑ 07:20,4 May 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Indo-US joint military exercise 'Vajra Prahar' to be held in Seattle". 2018-01-16.
  2. ^ "1st SFG (A) Trains with Indian Special Forces".
  3. ^ Praval, Major K.C. Indian Army After Independence. Lancer Publishers LLC. ISBN 9781935501619. The division also had a para commando group (from 9 para)

para commando — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.184.226.219 (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please introspect about the section you had added; it doesn't contain even a single piece of encyclopedic information about Para SF. Even if a Para commando unit was located in the Indian division involved that battle, they apparently didn't fight in the battle. If you can find anything of encyclopedic significance about Para SF's invlovement in that battle (such as what they did in that battle), please mention it in the article in one line. Don't add an entire section about it filled with irrelevant content. And don't edit war, or you might be blocked from editing. Regards,— Vaibhavafro 💬 04:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please WP:SIGN your comments. I have signed the above one on behalf of you. @Aman.kumar.goel and Sarvatra: you might want to leave a comment here.— Vaibhavafro 💬 04:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted because the tone was POV and the content was UNDUE. 1965 war has been mentioned already, so there is no need for another particular section for a battle of this war. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Motto of Para SF[edit]

Contrary to misconceptions, the motto of Para SF is the same as the motto of their regiment: Shatrujeet. It’s not ‘Men Apart, Every Man an Emperor’.

A first-hand proof of this can be found in this YouTube interview of Para SF operators. Listen from 2:30 until 2:37.— Vaibhavafro 💬 15:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am pointing this out because I am afraid that we may keep on getting edits like this one.— Vaibhavafro 💬 17:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up[edit]

Happened on this page and among other things noticed the "Battalions" section. In the state I found it, the entire section could've, arguably, been largely removed. I know this article is important to several regular editors and so instead chose to do some copy-editing instead, and tagged the section as 'refs needed' (there's not a single ref). Some of the content could be considered superfluous, but I generally left everything there for now, however more is work is needed. In fact, this entire article could do with a complete clean-up and more refs. It has been tagged since 2013. I'll leave it to you all to discuss. I'm happy to help further. Page is watchlisted. - wolf 09:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i actually agree with you on this one. Battalion should be a structure section and it seems redundant to add notable members here when there is a section of galantry awards for notable members already. Belevalo (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism Attempts[edit]

I have been noticing Vandalism attempts on this page in the section of awardees, the names are changed purposely with the intention of vandalising the article. Another user previously has also mentioned the same in the edits but I feel there has been a repeat. I have corrected whatever I could spot. Keep an eye out for such future attempts. --India142 16:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Bro kindly copy and paste the real ones here in the talk page. So we can look out even if we don't know what the correct ones are. SReader21 (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changes[edit]

@Venomisfree: you recently changed/removed a significant amount content. Apparently a number of airbourne units are now Para/SF. This change should be noted in the prose as part of the history, these article's need to be built as well as updated. - wolf 15:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Para_(Special_Forces)&oldid=1212184504"