Talk:List of military special forces units

Better way to reorganize this list visually?

For those who help maintain this article frequently (as well as any other viewers who may see this), I was thinking we could probably improve the readability of the article by converting the list entries into a standardized table format. Here's an example I'd suggest:

Special Forces Units

Nation	Service Branch	Parent Command	Unit	Notes
Lebanon	Lebanese Army Ground Forces	Lebanese Armed Forces Special Operations Command	Lebanese Commando Regiment (aka "Ranger Regiment")
Mexico	Mexican Army	Special Forces Corps	Special Reaction Force
	Mexican Navy		Amphibious Special Forces Group

refs
References

Thoughts? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC) ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

While I agree that tables can have benefits over lists in some contexts, I'm not sure this is one of them. On this page, it is basically a necessity to attach specific refs to specific units, as opposed to grouping them all in a single "refs" column cell, and on a table, that can look cluttered and messy. Also not sure that the generic column headings will work for every country, as some countries will require more sub-headings/additinal cells of their own. There will also very likely be a need for a good deal of grouped/merged cells in many of the countries as well. All this again takes away from a clean table look.

Additionally, this will all lead to a page with a good deal of wikitext, which is too complex for many of the single-use/low-use fly in/fly out ip-users that edit this page regularly, and will either lead to messes left behind in need of fixing, or excluding a large number of potential editors from contributing, (which I believe we're all supposed to be avoiding right now). Anyway, that's just my two cents on this, sorry about the length. - \\'cLf 08:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think refs should be in a separate column, they should be in-line within the same cell as the thing they're referencing. Within the table that actually looks quite clean (it's just the source-view wikimarkup that's a bit messy, but that's a problem with any ref and inherent to our markup language). Personally, I view an increased barrier of complexity to fly-in/fly-out IP users as a feature, not a bug, given how frequently those users are contributing unsourced or inaccurate content. You raise a valid point about some countries requiring additional sub-headings, but that's a solveable problem: basically it's only applicable to the "Parent command" in situations where there are multiple layers of parent command applicable, and in those cases we probably should be taking more of an editorial stance on picking and choosing the appropriate one. Alternatively, they could be combined into a single cell. So for instance, in the case of the U.S., we'd either decide to put USSOCOM as the parent command for all entries, or we'd put USASOC, AFSOC, NSW, etc. as appropriate, possibly with an explanatory footnote somewhere indicating that all of these fall under SOCOM. Regardless, it'd still be MUCH more readable and understandable than the current format, which requires readers to interpret what multiple layers of "*" indentation mean; not to mention that the current layout conflates parent units with child units (e.g. for Romania, as currently written it is ambiguous whether all of Direcţia Generală de Informaţii a Apărării is a special forces unit, or just the Special Detachment of Protection and Intervention.) ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Is there a country other than the US that this comment applies to? The list format, is the most basic, the easiest to maintain, and has been in place for over 20 years. Even if I agreed that the use of asterisks for layers indentation creates difficulty for readers (which I don't), how does adding muliples upon multiples of table cells, far from their headings, make things any easier for readers, and editors maintaining the list? If anything, the current layout of the US entry makes it the easiest to follow and therefore doesn't require any "editorial stance" to go one way or 'tother, nor does it require any "explanatory footnotes". (And the Romanian entry seems entirely straight forward.)

As for: "Personally, I view an increased barrier of complexity to fly-in/fly-out IP users as a feature, not a bug, given how frequently those users are contributing unsourced or inaccurate content." - yikes, no... part of having an "encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" is that anyone can edit it. That necessitates regular maintaince, which for articles like this, is made extremely easy with tools such as the watchlist and revert, roolback, etc., etc. But part of having all these inexperienced users edit the page, is that eventually a few of them gain more experience, and then go on to help build and maintain pages like this one.

But all that aside, I don't see converting this page into a table or tables as a benefit. (jmho) - \\'cLf 23:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

"We've had a sloppy, ugly list for 20 years" isn't a compelling argument not to change it. And nothing about this proposal prevents IP's from editing -- "anyone can edit" does not mean "anyone can edit at the same degree of technical capability" and never has in the history of this project. If there's no buy-in for this, fine. But the argument that a table format is somehow too technically complex for anyone to understand is not a strong one -- we use tables all over the project, including areas that IP's regularly engage with, without any difficulty, and they're generally considered a preferred method of presenting large structured batches of information -- see, e.g. MOS:LIST and MOS:TABLES (MOS:WHENTABLE) which tell us that tables are preferred when more than 2 pieces of information are of interest to each list item (e.g. not a "simple list"). Yes, there's a small, trivial degree of additional technical complexity. That's a fair tradeoff IMO for a much more usable, readable list. Might be better off if I just convert the entire thing on a sandbox/subpage and start an RFC for people to make a holistic assessment based on the complete, formatted list, whether it's too complex or whether to swap the format. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)