This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
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
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:
If you think I haven't read Lord and Watson a million times on Google Books and added extensive data from their book to many pages here, you are wrong. I did not start with Lord & Watson; I start with things like Peedle, Bob, 'Encyclopedia of the Modern Territorial Army', England : Patrick Stephens, 1990, and I have just looked up my notes from that book, taken in the early 1990s. Now, Lord & Watson yes clearly use (V) after groups and brigades. But the reason I unendingly lose my patience with you is that you cannot seem to interpret sources properly. *They are the only source that does*!! I've read hundred, probably thousands of references to Royal Signals formations and units since the early 1990s, sifting the *reliable* sources - the hardcopies, not random sites on the internet - and *no other source I recall* does so. Check *all* the other references that I removed because you didn't attribute the data sentence by sentence - you should have added the references *only* to the sentence that they apply to, because you packed so much information into each paragraph - and see if *any* of the others do so. Buckshot06(talk)16:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You continually amaze me, man!! Yes, wonderful if you've found something in The Wire - it's a very authoritative source. But The Wire has been around since about the 1920s!! Which issue, year, date, page number? WP:REFERENCES needs to be complied with, including page numbers!! Buckshot06(talk)06:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I'm referring to all "Wires" between 1966 and 1981. To provide one example, check the 1967 edition, page 112 (for pdf). "as a Squadron of 34th Regiment, part of 12th Signal Group (V) and it will continue to maintain the traditions, etc.". In 1968, page 237 "12th Signal Group (T&AVR)". In the 1969 edition, p. 18 "The following weekend was 12 Signal Group (V) study period...". I could keep going, but that would cause a very long message. Also 11th and 13th Signal Groups also show "Volunteers" or "(V)" after the title. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look mate, I do not think you fully understand. (a) some *billions* of words have been written here on this site since it was created, so long messages are expected, *and desired, where WP:REFERENCES are involved*; (b) your existence here on this site is back to hanging on a thread, due to your continued WP:CIR issues; (c) I have OVER AND OVER AGAIN asked you for exact, specific, details of references, including page numbers; (d) the clearest and most authoritative indications of whether "(V)" was actually attached to the Signal Groups formed c1968 will be in the most authoritative period documents for the 3-4 years after the change; (e) and you have access to The Wire.
Do us a favour, if I have been mistaken, find every reference to a Signal Group (V) in the Wire from 1967/68 for the next five years - with page numbers. That would contribute to settling this question for now (to be 101% accurate, one would need to have the set of official Army documents implementing the changes). This is the amazing thing about having access to secondary sources, instead of the tertiary sources like Lord & Watson, or Peedle.
.svg)
