This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
3rd (United Kingdom) Division article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This appears to be incorrect The Infantry Battalions should be
1 x Armoured Infantry 1 x Mechanised Infantry 1 x Light Role Infantry JS1 ( talk) 12:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe the entry for "3rd Mechanised Division (United Kingdom)" is incorrectly titled. It should be "3rd (United Kingdom) Division", according to the British Army website www.army.mod.uk/3rdUKDivision and the official history "Iron Division: The History of the 3rd Division 1809-2000" by Robin McNish ISBN 0-7110-2820-6. It states on page 216 of the book that the title "3rd (United Kingdom) Division" has been used since 1992. ArmyPost ( talk) 10:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
@ ArmyPost than you for your post to my talk page.
Hello PBS, Thank you for your recent changes to the "3rd (United Kingdom) Division" page. Please can you undo one of your amendments? The correct unit title of the British Army's 3rd Division is "3rd (United Kingdom) Division" with the 'UK' bit in the middle, not at the end. Please see their official website for confirmation: www.army.mod.uk/3rdUKDivision . Many thanks, ArmyPost ( talk) 13:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it better that I reply here so that the discussion is more public and others can add in their twopenny worth.
Article titles are based on common usage among other things (see WP:AT). The official name comes a long way down the list. That the UK is currently using an unusual format for divisional names does not mean that the Wikipedia article title should be bound to follow the same naming designation, particularly as the official name is new and is unlikely to appear in many third party sources, and because the military histories which mention this division are unlikely to use this new format for the name. The British Army like many other armies has had a tradition for at least 100 years of writing names in a reverse order presumably so that they sort well in a card index or whatever: eg "coat, great, large"; "coat, great, small"; etc. But that does not mean Wikipedia has to name a British Army greatcoat that way.
This article started out with a descriptive title "British 3rd Division" which personally I think is the best format. It was changed to 3rd Division (United Kingdom) back in 2008 when it was decided to standardise on that dab format within the project (something I opposed but was in a minority). I think that it is better that it remains in that format for the reason given above and the fact that the current British Army name is confusing by Wikipeida titling policy and dab extension guidelines. -- PBS ( talk) 15:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you to everybody for their comments regarding the correct title for the "3rd (United Kingdom) Division" article. I do not know how we go about resolving this debate, but I would welcome the page changing back to the Division's current title 3rd (United Kingdom) Division. Perhaps to aid historians with their research we can find room within the article to include the different titles that the British Third Division has held since 1809?
I have one additional point. In answer to GraemeLeggett's comment above, it is my understanding that the full title "3rd (United Kingdom) Division" has been in continuous use since 1 September 1992 (according to the 3rd edition of the official history "Iron Division: The History of the 3rd Division 1809-2000" by Robin McNish ISBN 0-7110-2820-6, published in 2000) and it certainly had the same name when the Division deployed its Headquarters to Kabul, Afghanistan in 2001/2 (as announced by the Secretary of State in December 2001 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.operations.mod.uk/afghanistan/newsItem_id=1298.htm). So I wonder if a period of 22 years is now a sufficiently long time for the Division to be known by its current title on Wikipedia?
I welcome any additional comments. ArmyPost ( talk) 16:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus ( non-admin closure) -- Calidum 05:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
3rd Division (United Kingdom) → 3rd (United Kingdom) Division – The current correct title is 3rd (United Kingdom) Division and that title should be used for the article --Relisted. — Amakuru ( talk) 11:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Dormskirk ( talk) 21:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
if you want to reflect inaccurate names, so go ahead and give inaccurate info. Phd8511 ( talk) 13:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
This article is based on the fallacy that there is an entity in the British Army known as the '3rd Division' which has had continuous existence as a military formation since the first 3rd division was formed during the Napoleonic wars. There have in fact been several 3rd Divisions in the course of the last two hundred years with little continuity, not least between 1815 and 1854 and between 1854 and 1899. It might help clear up difficulties evident in conversations above if the article acknowledged this. The fact that in the recent past there have been rather ham-fisted attempts within the army to give a different impression, in relation to both divisions and brigades, in order to create some kind of PR identity, has only added to the confusion. The only entities with any form of continuous existence have been the regiments and corps. JF42 ( talk) 19:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 3rd Division (United Kingdom). 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 3rd Division (United Kingdom). 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Here you go
https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/corps-regiments-and-units/3rd-united-kingdom-division/
Thanks
Sammartinlai ( talk) 01:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/16692785.military-mod-announces-new-faces-in-command/
Sammartinlai ( talk) 15:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Interesting to note that Scarfe, the divisional historian for WW2, discredits the notion that the division was nicknamed the Ironsides, stating that was particular to the men of the First World War division. So, do we have any sources stating that it was a nickname ongoing other than the title of Delaforce's book (is a title alone a suitable reference for a nickname?) 172.96.34.206 ( talk) 03:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
see https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/formations-divisions-brigades/3rd-united-kingdom-division/hq-1st-artillery-brigade/ edit if you wish.
BlueD954 ( talk) 15:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
according to the British Army website is back under 6th UK division.
BlueD954 ( talk) 03:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
3rd (United Kingdom) Division article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This appears to be incorrect The Infantry Battalions should be
1 x Armoured Infantry 1 x Mechanised Infantry 1 x Light Role Infantry JS1 ( talk) 12:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe the entry for "3rd Mechanised Division (United Kingdom)" is incorrectly titled. It should be "3rd (United Kingdom) Division", according to the British Army website www.army.mod.uk/3rdUKDivision and the official history "Iron Division: The History of the 3rd Division 1809-2000" by Robin McNish ISBN 0-7110-2820-6. It states on page 216 of the book that the title "3rd (United Kingdom) Division" has been used since 1992. ArmyPost ( talk) 10:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
@ ArmyPost than you for your post to my talk page.
Hello PBS, Thank you for your recent changes to the "3rd (United Kingdom) Division" page. Please can you undo one of your amendments? The correct unit title of the British Army's 3rd Division is "3rd (United Kingdom) Division" with the 'UK' bit in the middle, not at the end. Please see their official website for confirmation: www.army.mod.uk/3rdUKDivision . Many thanks, ArmyPost ( talk) 13:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I think it better that I reply here so that the discussion is more public and others can add in their twopenny worth.
Article titles are based on common usage among other things (see WP:AT). The official name comes a long way down the list. That the UK is currently using an unusual format for divisional names does not mean that the Wikipedia article title should be bound to follow the same naming designation, particularly as the official name is new and is unlikely to appear in many third party sources, and because the military histories which mention this division are unlikely to use this new format for the name. The British Army like many other armies has had a tradition for at least 100 years of writing names in a reverse order presumably so that they sort well in a card index or whatever: eg "coat, great, large"; "coat, great, small"; etc. But that does not mean Wikipedia has to name a British Army greatcoat that way.
This article started out with a descriptive title "British 3rd Division" which personally I think is the best format. It was changed to 3rd Division (United Kingdom) back in 2008 when it was decided to standardise on that dab format within the project (something I opposed but was in a minority). I think that it is better that it remains in that format for the reason given above and the fact that the current British Army name is confusing by Wikipeida titling policy and dab extension guidelines. -- PBS ( talk) 15:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you to everybody for their comments regarding the correct title for the "3rd (United Kingdom) Division" article. I do not know how we go about resolving this debate, but I would welcome the page changing back to the Division's current title 3rd (United Kingdom) Division. Perhaps to aid historians with their research we can find room within the article to include the different titles that the British Third Division has held since 1809?
I have one additional point. In answer to GraemeLeggett's comment above, it is my understanding that the full title "3rd (United Kingdom) Division" has been in continuous use since 1 September 1992 (according to the 3rd edition of the official history "Iron Division: The History of the 3rd Division 1809-2000" by Robin McNish ISBN 0-7110-2820-6, published in 2000) and it certainly had the same name when the Division deployed its Headquarters to Kabul, Afghanistan in 2001/2 (as announced by the Secretary of State in December 2001 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.operations.mod.uk/afghanistan/newsItem_id=1298.htm). So I wonder if a period of 22 years is now a sufficiently long time for the Division to be known by its current title on Wikipedia?
I welcome any additional comments. ArmyPost ( talk) 16:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus ( non-admin closure) -- Calidum 05:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
3rd Division (United Kingdom) → 3rd (United Kingdom) Division – The current correct title is 3rd (United Kingdom) Division and that title should be used for the article --Relisted. — Amakuru ( talk) 11:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Dormskirk ( talk) 21:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
if you want to reflect inaccurate names, so go ahead and give inaccurate info. Phd8511 ( talk) 13:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
This article is based on the fallacy that there is an entity in the British Army known as the '3rd Division' which has had continuous existence as a military formation since the first 3rd division was formed during the Napoleonic wars. There have in fact been several 3rd Divisions in the course of the last two hundred years with little continuity, not least between 1815 and 1854 and between 1854 and 1899. It might help clear up difficulties evident in conversations above if the article acknowledged this. The fact that in the recent past there have been rather ham-fisted attempts within the army to give a different impression, in relation to both divisions and brigades, in order to create some kind of PR identity, has only added to the confusion. The only entities with any form of continuous existence have been the regiments and corps. JF42 ( talk) 19:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 3rd Division (United Kingdom). 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 3rd Division (United Kingdom). 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Here you go
https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/corps-regiments-and-units/3rd-united-kingdom-division/
Thanks
Sammartinlai ( talk) 01:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/16692785.military-mod-announces-new-faces-in-command/
Sammartinlai ( talk) 15:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Interesting to note that Scarfe, the divisional historian for WW2, discredits the notion that the division was nicknamed the Ironsides, stating that was particular to the men of the First World War division. So, do we have any sources stating that it was a nickname ongoing other than the title of Delaforce's book (is a title alone a suitable reference for a nickname?) 172.96.34.206 ( talk) 03:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
see https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/formations-divisions-brigades/3rd-united-kingdom-division/hq-1st-artillery-brigade/ edit if you wish.
BlueD954 ( talk) 15:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
according to the British Army website is back under 6th UK division.
BlueD954 ( talk) 03:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)