• I created this template initially with the idea that it would be a navigation aid, and naively thought it would be a simple task. As it progresses, however, it is becoming more complex. Should it be only current units? What about the defunct/closed down units? Does the current structure work? Thoughts please!BoonDock (talk)09:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are the Joint Operational Commands/Joint Operational Centres? Are you referring toJoint Operations Division? Or simply the standard Joint Operations Centre as part of the ops branch of a joint headquarters? In that last case, we create articles for the entire formation, not sub-branches of their headquarters.
  • On the Regional Joint Task Forces, yes, aJoint Task Force meets the U.S. DOD definition of aFormation (military), being a number of units under a headquarters. Now in some way which I'm not entirely clear about, they are joint-service, though they appear to be made up, of the vast majority, of South African Army units. So they are formations, but not technically part of the SA Army anymore. The reason I listed them here is because they still fulfill the roles of the old command HQs, and the army's structure can't be understood properly without them.Buckshot06(talk)22:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This needs more research I think.BoonDock (talk)08:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @user:Buckshot06 Re your comment on the last edit that WP is for the non expert. While I agree with that, I made a deliberate attempt when creating this template to make it as concise as possible, and to that end used all the possible abbreviations. I would appreciate the continued use of abbreviations, particularly with theabbr template. This allows readers to hover over a shortened form that they don't understand and see it's meaning. BTW, theJTFs aren't precisely units, or commands, but neither are theJOCs. Maybe they should also be included?BoonDock (talk)19:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please *do not* abbreviate things when you're wanting my comments!
  • If you want to split out a template called 'Current SA Army Units' which you can keep constantly up to date, that might be an option, but if you wish to call it SA Army units then it should have everything, in command hierarchy order largest to smallest, notWP:RECENTIST with non-active formations and units relegated to the bottom. That's my view.
    • That might not be a bad plan. Let's just leave it a while and see how this one develops. If you take a look at the page I created last night,List of South African Battle Honours, you'll see LOTS of defunct units, which could all in theory be on this template.BoonDock (talk)08:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I entirely disagree with the use of abbreviations, precisely because the people who are going to have to navigate the template may not be military experts (fourth line ofWP:PERFECT)!! It's fine for us, but we're very close to the subject. Too close, in this case!!
    • But this is NOT an article. That's my point. Anyway, if we follow your logic, then the template becomes completely unwieldy. Look at all the units that are abbreviated. CTH, NC etc. If we spelled those out in full ...BoonDock (talk)08:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added a comment which displayed in the template to the effect that 2 articles should be merged. I'm not arguing the merits of that here but suggesting strongly that such comments belong elsewhere. There are recognised procedures on Wikipedia for this. In the template text is clearly not one of those.BoonDock (talk)10:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dodger67: removed the listing from the template for the Special Forces Brigade (Here) with the comment that "Special Forces are not an army unit". I would dispute that. They ARE an army brigade and the individual regiments ARE army units as were the old Commandos. It IS true that they were seen as a strategic asset and placed under the direct control of the CSADF, but that had nothing to do with the NATURE of the units. It's also true that this changed from time to time. I plan to return the Brigade and the individual current regiments to this template as well as the disbanded commandos.BoonDock (talk)01:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Caracal Rooikat: Hi. I believe this template is incomplete without the history of the Union Defence Force. The SADF only existed from 1960 to 1993, a mere 33 years. The UDF Army components existed from 1912 to 1957 and had a huge impact on the traditions and design of the SADF and SANDF. Without the UDF in this template a large amount of context is lost. Additionally the incorporation of the UDF is not difficult as several wiki pages already exist of UDF units and structure. It would merely entail linking them to the template. Your thoughts please.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Defence_Force_(South_Africa)

• Go ahead. If it turns out to be to cluttered or clumsy we can always break it out as an independent template.BoonDock (talk)15:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BoonDock:,@Caracal Rooikat: This template is too unwieldy for a nav template as it fills multiple screens. I propose to split the template into the post-1994 SANDF Army units, the SADF units, the UDF units, the WWI volunteer units, and the colonial units that existed before the formation of the Union. Comments and suggestions?Kges1901 (talk)21:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The template defaults to closed so there is no interruption in use of the page, but when you want to navigate to another unit then it’s all in one place.

I disagree with working on a direct replacement though. There is no sane split that can be made easily. I would suggest that you create the other templates you suggest, and once they’re populated and prepared then they could be added selectively to the units included in them. That does mean that those units which have long histories will have multiple templates included of course.BoonDock (talk)00:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]