This template 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
Does not belong to SS (see p.388 GEORG TESSIN Verbande und Truppen
der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS
im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945 ERSTER BAND: HIBLIO VERLAG OSNABRUCK 1977 or here [1] ) – it’s Ordnungspolizei brigade at same time in list missed 1.SS-Polizei-Jäger-Brigade.Jo0doe (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kges1901: the links that I removed with this edit were mostly redirects or piped links to other units. This does not seem to be necessary. Thoughts? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The links are necessary IMO because these units, even if they are redirects, were still brigades, and as such qualify for inclusion in the template. The division articles that are redirected to cover a substantial amount of the histories of the brigades and as such I think they are useful to link to. The standard for MILHIST nav templates is to include all units of a the type they are supposed to cover, regardless of whether redirect or not. I am aware that WP:EXISTING says that redirects should be avoided but these redirects are to pages that have actual information about said brigades, so it is not like a redirect to a page with no information about the topic of redirection. Kges1901 (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I was trying to say here is that the redirects that you removed were to articles that provided information about the unit linked to in the template, for example SS Brigade Schuldt is half of the article text. In any case, the removals of SS Panzergrenadier Brigades 49 and 51 are incorrect now that both have articles. Kges1901 (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
