Talk:Algerian People's National Army

Latest comment: 4 days ago by Lord Ruffy98 in topic Berber names for Algerian and Moroccan corps

Proposed Move

edit

Proposing that this page be moved. My understanding is that the proper name for the Military of Algeria is the People's National Army (or Armee Nationale Populaire). That name is currently being used as the page for the Land Forces (or Forces Terrestres). The national military structures should have proper article titles to avoid confusion. -Jonathon A H (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Algerian People's National Armed Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Algerian People's National Armed Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

edit

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2019 (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) 10:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 16 September 2021

edit
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 23:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply


– Changing names to official and correct names, per official website. Skjoldbro (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 07:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Skjoldbro (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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) 00:08, 17 October 2021 (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) 08:52, 22 February 2022 (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) 22:27, 16 December 2022 (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) 15:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Berber names for Algerian and Moroccan corps

edit

Hi everyone, I was advised to write here to discuss the use of Berber names for institutions and organizations in countries like Algeria and Morocco, where it is recognized as a second national language.

I would like to edit those pages by adding the Berber version of the names. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The two countries are different. The "Algerian People's National Army" doesn't have a "Berber name". M.Bitton (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Pinging @GeorgeMemulous, Pigsonthewing, and Skitash: from the Helpdesk discussion. TSventon (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's why i think it has to be added.
For Algeria:
None of the branches of the Algerian Armed Forces currently have their names in Berber (Standard Algerian Berber), and I believe this is incorrect. The branches include theAlgerian Land Forces, Algerian National Navy, Algerian Air Force, Territorial Air Defence Forces, Republican Guard. These names can be translated into Berber, and such versions are already used on the internet, as seen in this article.
For Morocco:
Some pages already include Berber names, such as Royal Moroccan Army, Royal Moroccan Gendarmerie and Royal Moroccan Air Force. However one of those names is written in the Berber Latin alphabet rather than in the Berber languages (Standard Moroccan Amazigh).
Others, like the Royal Royal Moroccan Navy and the Moroccan Royal Guard, do not yet have Berber names included Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comparing apples to oranges serves no purpose.
None of the branches of the Algerian Armed Forces currently have their names in Berber the reason is simple: apart from the fact that Tamazight is still being developed, those institution don't use it in any form or shape. M.Bitton (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comparing apples to oranges serves no purpose.
Actually i think that we are not comparing completely different things: we are comparing the institutions of one country with those of another country, and in this case, the two countries share many similarities, such as the language.
Moreover, although Moroccan institutions do not use it extensively, this does not prevent others from using it.
So i still don't understand what would be the problem by adding berber version. Lord Ruffy98 (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply