This article 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
The name of this page is is a problem. To my knowledge, it was never 61 MechanisedInfantryBattalion Group. 61 Mechanised Battalion Group & 61 Mechanised Battalion yes. Do we need to blank and redirect? If so, to which name?
BoonDock (
talk)
22:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)řreply
According to Major General Roland de Vries in his book Eye of the Storm, as a former commander of the unit in 1981 & 82, refers to them as 61 Mech or 61 Mechanised Battalion Group. Has it origins in Operation Savannah as Battle Group Juliet. The veterans group refers to themselves as 61 Mechanised Battalion Group Veterans Association. I think it should remain as named.
Conlinp (
talk)
08:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)reply
You make my point for me. Nowhere in there does it say Infantry! So I say again, should we recreate the page as 61 Mechanised Battalion Group?
BoonDock (
talk)
09:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Support moving to 61 Mechanised Battalion Group all the reliable sources I have checked (on my bookshelf) agree. If you're not familiar with the technicalities of moving a page, I'll do it when a sufficient consensus has been reached. (Please do not do a copy/paste move, it breaks the history and attribution of a page.)
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk)
09:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)reply
@
BoonDock - Links in navboxes, other articles, etc., are easy to update using the "what links here" tool. So we'll let this proposal stand for a few days - see what other comments are added, and then act accordingly.
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk)
14:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Done - I have also updated the Army units template, that should take care of the majority of the redirect links. We need to wait a bit (12 to 24 hours) for the change to propagate throughout the whole database, then we can easily track down remaining links that need to be fixed.
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk)
17:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)reply
This article 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
The name of this page is is a problem. To my knowledge, it was never 61 MechanisedInfantryBattalion Group. 61 Mechanised Battalion Group & 61 Mechanised Battalion yes. Do we need to blank and redirect? If so, to which name?
BoonDock (
talk)
22:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)řreply
According to Major General Roland de Vries in his book Eye of the Storm, as a former commander of the unit in 1981 & 82, refers to them as 61 Mech or 61 Mechanised Battalion Group. Has it origins in Operation Savannah as Battle Group Juliet. The veterans group refers to themselves as 61 Mechanised Battalion Group Veterans Association. I think it should remain as named.
Conlinp (
talk)
08:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)reply
You make my point for me. Nowhere in there does it say Infantry! So I say again, should we recreate the page as 61 Mechanised Battalion Group?
BoonDock (
talk)
09:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Support moving to 61 Mechanised Battalion Group all the reliable sources I have checked (on my bookshelf) agree. If you're not familiar with the technicalities of moving a page, I'll do it when a sufficient consensus has been reached. (Please do not do a copy/paste move, it breaks the history and attribution of a page.)
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk)
09:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)reply
@
BoonDock - Links in navboxes, other articles, etc., are easy to update using the "what links here" tool. So we'll let this proposal stand for a few days - see what other comments are added, and then act accordingly.
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk)
14:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)reply
Done - I have also updated the Army units template, that should take care of the majority of the redirect links. We need to wait a bit (12 to 24 hours) for the change to propagate throughout the whole database, then we can easily track down remaining links that need to be fixed.
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk)
17:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)reply