Talk:Hellenic Air Force

message: Guys, when writing in the ENGLISH wikipedia, use the ENGLISH names for the squadrons, first. thanks
See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English).
George Marselis
Draft Sargent, Computer Analyst
D'02
Project2501a 12:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That link refers to article titles.  Still, you have a point.  I'll start reversing the order sometime this week.--Jpbrenna 06:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled

message: Guys this particular aircraft has been officialy retired from service and only 2 aircraft are kept (semi-operational) for display and exibition reasons only. I have seen this entry go on and off the fleet table many times in the past so I thought I should inform you. Take care -- kompikos 5:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dornier Do-28 has been retired

message: The final section on Turkey may have truth to it, but has no citations as the contributors bias is clearly evident upon reading it. 68.39.174.238 00:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: :Image:Airforce.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Airforce.gif

message: :Image:Geetha.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 08:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Geetha.png

message: :Image:EMB R-99A.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:EMB R-99A.jpg

message: This picture is not related to the Hellenic Air Force, which has no MM-40 in its inventory, and should be deleted from this article.
Sv1xv (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are not related directly with the Air Force they should be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Well User:Sv1xv should removed them in their entirety, rather than turning them into hidden text. That would have prevent further inclusion. El Greco(talk) 14:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MM-40 Exocet picture 

message: The last paragraph "As of 2007... Sukhoi Su-35 or Su-37" is possibly accurate, but it must be properly referenced, otherwise it remains a speculation and is not compatible with the Wikipedia:Verifiability concept. Sv1xv (talk) 09:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can find many references in the greek military press. It is not speculation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.1.118 (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entering the 21st century 

message: The copyright issues regarding re-use of material from http://www.haf.gr are not specific enough. I sent an e-mail to the webmaster regarding this subject and he replied that material from their web site can be reused as long as the original source is stated. Sv1xv (talk) 07:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of material from HAF website 

message: I believe this note does not belong to this article. It is best to move it to the appropriate article Dassault_Mirage_F1#Mirage_F1CG. Any oppinions? Sv1xv (talk) 07:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. MilborneOne (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note about Mirage F-1CG 

message: There must have been a mistake here. The A-7 is NOT in operational storage. It's fully OPERATIONAL.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.139.31 (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A-7E is operational, A-7H is in storage. M.Lahanas (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-7 NOT in operational storage 

message: The structure section is more like a photo gallery and doesnt really communicate the structure at all. Because of the images it becomes unreadable at small screen sizes. I would suggest a more simple list and a bit of explanation might be better for the stucture. The gallery is already far to big and needs pruning (as most images can be seen fom the commons link). Any thoughts. MilborneOne (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I gave up editing this article (Hellenic Air Force) and Hellenic Navy when some editors started overloading the articles with photos. It's childish. Sv1xv (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear Sv1xv, by "some editors" I presume you refer to me, because both the structure section in the Hellenic Air Force article and the "Inventory" section in the Hellenic Navy article are entirely my work. There is a reason I used photos in both these sections and this is because visual material is a vital part of any encyclopedia and gives an instant visual reference to the reader of the equipment mentioned. Not everybody is a military expert and by no means did I use these photos (which by the way are exclusively from the Wiki Commons) in order to show-off (sort of speak) or make the articles more prestigious. My intend was to categorize, in tables, the information previously provided randomly and fill in any info missing, in reference to the present status of the Forces. I cannot see in any way how this effort is "childish"..! I agree that it could have been presented in an even more "communicative" way, but comparing to the previous status of these sections, I consider them to be a big step. Not to mention the time I devoted. If you look in relevant articles of other countries( for ex. RAF or USN) you will notice every kind of "avatar", "shield", "emblem" etc. ever used by these military branches in the articles AND equipment photos, presented in any possible way so as to create a sense of prestige and power. Why don't you refer to these edits as "childish" too?? In the Greek articles such an attempt was never made and this was not the goal. Not that I consider the RAF for ex. or the USN articles as intentionally overloaded, in my opinion these additions make the articles more communicative and cosmetically solid for an electronic encyclopedia. Anyway, I made my point, I think, and any suggestions are welcome. Childish for me is to state that an other editors work looks "childish" just because you would have done it in an other way. kompikos (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kompikos, of course I mean you and I believe your net contribution to en-wiki in negative. I disagree with the extravagant way you chose to organize and illustrate articles. You don't make them more prestigeous, nor more informative, you just make them overloaded and ugly. You obviously confuse an encyclopedia with a publicity web site. It is a pitty that there is not a critical mass of good editors interested in greek military subjects with a couple of admins between them to enforce a reasonable style. Sv1xv (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure and gallery

message: El Greco today our inventory is.
Fighters,
32 F-16C/D Block-30 ( 28 -C , 4 -D ),
39 F-16C/D Block-50 ( 31 -C , 8 -D ),
58 F-16C/D Block-52+ ( 38 -C , 20 -D ),
30 F-16C/D Block-52 Adv ( under delivery ) ( 20 -C , 10 -D ),
25 M-2000-5 ( 15 of them bought new and 10 were older M-2000EGM that upgraded to M-2000-5 ),
20 M-2000EGM/BGM ( 17 -EGM, 3 -BGM ),
40 TA/A-7E   ( will retire when we deliver all 30 new F-16 ),
35 F-4 PI-2000,
18 RF-4E,
Transport-Fire fighters,
10 C-130H ( 2 of them can carry EW systems ),
5  C-130B,
12 C-27J,
1 C-47  ( its only for historical flights ),
1 YS-11A ( its only for calibration ),
1 Do-28D  ( SAR duties, will retire ),
1 ERJ-135 ( VIP ),
1 ERJ-145 ( VIP ),
1 Gulfstream-V ( VIP ),
8 CL-415GR/MP ( 7 -GR, 1 -MP ),
13 CL-215,
12 G-164A,
22 PZL M-18A/BS ( 19 -A , 3-BS )
Trainers,
19 T-41D,
45 T-6A,
40 T-2C/E ( 5 -C , 35 -E ),
Helicopters
11 AB-205A ( SAR ),
4  Bell-212 ( VIP ),
3  A-109E ( MEDEVAC ),
6  AS-532 ( CSAR ),
4  AS-332C1  ( SAR, these helis belong to Coast Guard but operated with HAF help ),
Also decision taken for 15 new AS-332C1,
AEW&C ( ,,flying radars,, ),
4 EMB-145H ERIEYE,
UAV,
5  Pegasus-1,
12 Pegasus-2 ( on order ),
MPA ( maritime patrol ),
6 P-3B ( 2 of them grounded, very low availability, belong to navy and operated with HAF help ),
About anti-aircraft systems, weapons, pods are O.K in article and dont need any change.
About future plans.
In fighters they are plans for 40 4th generation planes. The fleet of F-16 planned to go for an upgrade. 
In trainers for 37 new jet trainers to replace the T-2 Buckeye.
Also for new piston trainers to replace the T-41D Mescalero.
At helis decision taken for 15 new AS-332C1 to replace the AB-205 and Bell-212.
The 6 P-3B Orion planned to replace by 5 new planes but this is a Navy decision about the type that will replace them.
2 new AS-332 helis on order for Ministry of Health but will operated by HAF ( ministry has not pilots-structure to operate them alone )
About the EMB-99 aircraft you search their is no such plane.
Exist a maritime patrol model of Embraer aircraft called R-99 but we dont have it.
Οπως στα γράφω είναι, πηγή είμαι εγώ αλλά δεν μπορώ να δημοσιεύσω τον ευατό μου.
Οτι νομίζεις κάνε. Αν δεν ξέρεις εσύ από αεροπορία βάλε τότε τον Kompiko να ασχολείται που τα ξέρει και με το παραπάνω.
Οσες φορές είναι τέλειο το inventory μιλάμε το έχεις χαλάσει αρκετά... πρόσεξε μην τα ,,θαλασσώνεις,, !!
Kαλό 15Αυγουστο. 
Γιάννης 9/8/2009 Αθήνα  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.11.12 (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and your source or sources are? You have a burden to provide them. El Greco(talk) 20:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The inventory proposed by the anonymous editor 85.75.11.12 is much closer to reality than the one in the article. See for example the numbers of CL-415 types. However there is only one airworthy P-3B, three others being grounded due to lack of spares or need for major inspection. The Embraer R-99 family does exist and it is the manufacturer's designation for military ERJ-145 variants (P-99, E-99, R-99). See Embraer R-99. Unfortunately many printed sources about the inventory are obsolete and unreliable. They tend to recycle old information from their competitors and they are unsuitable for use in wikipedia without further processing. Sv1xv (talk) 08:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but where did the anonymous user get this information from? The official HAF website doesn't even list specific numbers. So whether the anon is right or wrong is merely irrelevant.........it's that there is no Verifiability to his claims from a reliable source. Show me the exact link to that information, and I will gladly change it until then, it doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria. El Greco(talk) 21:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  For a relatively reliable source I would recommend Hellenic Defence Report 2009-2010 (Yearbook of the magazine Hellenic Defence & Security) by G. Christogiannakis, Athens, July 2009. Also Hellenic Air Force Yearbook 2009/A by Special Projects Aviation & Defence Editions, Athens, June 2009 (ISSN: 1790-4102). They closely agree with the numbers of the anon editor. Sv1xv (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Whatever the Eriye is called in Greece (HAF was never really consistent in names and serial numbers), the wikilink must point to the proper Wikipedia article for the type Embraer R-99 (military versions), not to Embraer ERJ 145 family (civilian versions). I have fixed all relevant articles, please don't break the links again. Sv1xv (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Inventory today in Air Force

message: According to [] Greek Air Force uses the U.S.A.F. rank system in english speaking papers. Historically the British (RAF) ranks were used until ca. 1967. So, it would be appropriate for present officers to prefer the U.S. rank system: United States Air Force officer rank insignia.Alexikoua (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ranks

message: I had to remove the whole paragraph. Please do not write anything about it anymore. Not only it was written in what can only be described as poor English, it was also unreferenced and unsubstantiated. People need to understand that the Red flag organisers do not publish "scores" or anything like that. The references for the performance of the squadron that participated there can only be found in Greek press and there is a huge discrepancy between them. Some say that the score was x, some that the score was y, some that the score was z, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.237.85.229 (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Red Flag

message: Its a waste of time editing the list with-out a source ir link. Remember what ever number you put down will NOT change realityRademire (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide an in-line explanation for why the inventory totals don't match the individual numbers provided? Eg there are 24 Transport aircraft listed, but a total of 28; 85 trainer aircraft listed, but a total of 105; and 29 helicopters listed, but a total of 34.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.230.224 (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Do-not edit air craft inventory list'''

message: It needs to pe flipped horizontally  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews (talk • contribs) 11:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  OF-4 Insignia is "backwords" 

message: I have reverted 2 edits by , see DIFF. The unreferenced edits here related to military involvement in Afghanistan. If these have any validity, please let me know. Out of a total of 4 edits, the editors 1st and 4th were vandalism at Gaza flotilla clash.  --220.101.28.25 (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal reversion 

message: T-41 is still used as trainer.I noticed that after the last edit it is not in the "trainer aircraft" list.
GiorgosKak (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  T-41 

message: Is it worth changing the Rank Insignia to the images found here? --ChevronTango (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible New Rank Images 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hellenic Air Force. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090718212408/http://www.haf.gr/en/history/history/history_5.asp to http://www.haf.gr/en/history/history/history_5.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081212000034/http://www.haf.gr/en/history/history/history_6.asp to http://www.haf.gr/en/history/history/history_6.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hellenic Air Force. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081024071745/http://www.aeroworldnet.com/1tw05039.htm to http://www.aeroworldnet.com/1tw05039.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090829211030/http://koti.welho.com/msolanak/organogrengl.html to http://koti.welho.com/msolanak/organogrengl.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: So  took upon himself to revert content that was sourced, and reinstate some dsambiguation links, which was started with changes by  and no citations were provided.  As not to get into an edit war I'm asking any editors to perhaps provide an opposing source regarding the F-16's variants and their roles. Currently Flight Global's World Air Forces 2018 pg. 19 has the C variant under combat and the D is under the training role. Thanks - FOX 52 (talk) 07:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't make this personal. First, instead of attacking for some minor disambiguation problems, why are you not mentioning that your edit included your personal commentary? Or did you not notice that fact? Perhaps, you even missed my edit-summary. Let's hope so; otherwise you are trying to hide your sloppy edit. Second, use Google, you'll see many results from top sources calling this a combat aircraft. Examples: Its main combat strength consisted of two fighter squadrons with 17-18 F-16C and 4 F-16D fighters., F-16D—two-seat combat and training version of F-16C;, The top operational U.S. air combat systems include the F–16D, F–15E, F–14D, and F/A–18D tactical fighters,, The first aerial victory scored by an F-16 came after the Gulf War, in Decem- ber 1992, when an F-16D of the 363rd TFW shot down an Iraqi MiG-25 that had illegally .... Are these enough or do you need me to do more Googling for you? Dr. K. 07:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Ok first of all, the HAF itself lists all its F-16s as "Fighter Aircraft" and not as "Trainer aircraft" . I think the HAF is the most credible source for what aircraft it uses as trainers and which ones it doesn't. This is also backed by various sources . The F-16 is a very expensive and highly capable fighter. To suggest it is used as a exclusively as a trainer is ludicrous. Now, because the F-16D is a two seater, it's conceivable that some are also used for training, but the notion that it is an exclusively trainer aircraft and should be listed as such is absurd. Khirurg (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks  and , sorry if I came off attacking I just wanted the change to be sourced. - Just a side note many Air Forces use their C/D variants in different roles depending on their needs, that's why I was asking a specific source pertaining to the Hellenic Air Force. - Cheers 08:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's ok. All's well that ends well. Best regards. Dr. K. 14:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  F-16C/D roles 

message: Dear all,
I have made some extensive changes on the paragraph structure, text flow, English grammar and vocabulary and picture allocation in extensive parts of the page WITHOUT adding new information or deleting old that were verified. I made all these changes having forgotten to login so please atribute all these changes to me.
The purpose was to improve the quality and flow of the text, as well as the English vocabulary and grammar used so it can be pleasantly read in English. The visuals (pictures) were also repositioned to refer to the text.
I have noticed that the inventory DOES NOT include aircraft that are part of the fleet such as the Embraer ERJ-135 for example? Also the structure of the inventory table seem to be a bit random (for example the aerial firefighters section is “dropped” in the middle of other major combat units etc). I think the inventory needs to be properly remodelled to improve the quality of the table and the article.
Many thanks 
—>kompikos (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the format that is used for all inventory tables, and if you wish to add the Embraer ERJ-135, please make sure you have a reliable source - Thanks FOX 52 (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: FOX 52, I suppose the official HAF website is not a reliable source for you then? The format is not similar to the RAF or USAF format for example. They do not use an inventory table so I am afraid there is no specific standard. I am only suggesting that the categories should be arranged in an order that makes more sense (the warfare units first and the auxiliary or alternative role units such as the firefighters for example, after). Thank you. kompikos (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: images in the tables creates formatting issues, further crowds that article with to many pictures going against WP:IMAGEMOS. As where there is already a gallery. (And if needed I can dig up the discussion regarding this issue & the consensus against image/tables) - FOX 52 (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes in article structure, grammar, phrasing, photos position and comment for the inventory. 

message: @FOX52
I do not care about removing the images from the tables but reverting the whole format and wasting a day’s work to create the table of retired and historical aircraft is beyond me, You could have only removed the images if this creates the format and clutter problem and not the entire table, just because you can’t be bothered to just remove the images. It is one thing to oversee the format of the page and another thing to waste everyone’s time. If the idea is to move from free users editing of Wikipedia to a few “master” editors that can’t be bothered reviewing what they should and shouldn’t revert, then it’s a complete waste of time, time which I do not have. At least re-enter the historical aircraft table without the images. Or is it too much work for you? Thanks for nothing. 
Kompikos (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The retired /historic table/list is currently very incomplete - in addition, it is unclear what the scope actually is - is it just the Hellenic Air Force? does it include the pre-1930 Hellenic Army Air Service and Naval Air Service? Does it include the current Army and Navy air arms? If made complete it would probably overwhelm the article, and would be better split off to form a separate article.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: this table didn't even exist before yesterday. The retired aircraft were part of a cluttered paragraph that had references from 2015. So the table's scope is to organise that clutter. Now, it may be incomplete but the purpose is to only include notable HAF and pre-1930s Hellenic Army Air Service weapons that are notable and not all possible aircraft that had been retired from HAF or the Hellenic Armed Forces. I agree it should be split, or at least stay as is after your modification, a separate section of the current article.--Kompikos (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waste of time 

message: The article currently says "Until the late 1980s the Air Force deployed Nike-Hercules Missiles armed with U.S. nuclear warheads using the LTV TA-7C Corsair II." The Nike Hercules is a large surface-to-air missile. While it possible that the HAF's Nike Hercules missiles had US nuclear warheads that could be fitted in times of dire need and even that the HAF's A-7s could also have access to US owned nuclear bombs, one thing that is certain is that the Nike Hercules would be carried by the A-7s as the article currently states. In addition, the whole paragraph is completely unsourced.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Removed until referenced as, although nuclear warheads were deployed as part of the NATO nuclear sharing program, there is no evidence that Nike-Hercules were ever in Greece. --Kompikos (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Nike Hercules armed A-7s??

message: I really cannot see the purpose of this section. It is highly politicised and frankly, I cannot see how it interests anybody who visits this article. It's factual integrity is disputed, it expresses possible personal opinions of whoever introduced it and does not reflect the politically neutral (official) position of the Greek Armed forces since 1975, creating the false impression that the Hellenic Air Force is politicised. Above all, it has no educational purpose, it just expresses the personal view of the author. I think it should be completely removed from the article, but cannot take the liberty to do this alone unless more editors agree. Many thanks. --Kompikos (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to open discussion about this section. I agree to be removed (eventually, to be included under that "History" section, as it covers period of time before 1981). Nubia86 (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Update. I checked again that section and I removed it, I agree with editor Kompikos arguments. Nubia86 (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political involvement section 

message: In the "Other Ranks" section, there's no mention and image of the Conscript Sergeant rank. 
Take a look at: https://www.haf.gr/staff/ranks/ 85.74.34.137 (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conscript sergeant