Talk:3rd (United Kingdom) Division

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

3rd Div Graphic

This appears to be incorrect The Infantry Battalions should be

1 x Armoured Infantry 1 x Mechanised Infantry 1 x Light Role Infantry

talk) 12:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


and? there are exactly the regiments you mentioned in the 2x Mechanised Brigades (1st & 12th).
i.e 1st Mechanised Brigade:
The British Army describes units equipped with the
Warrior IFV as "Armoured Infantry" and units equipped with the Saxon as "Mechanised Infantry" - but the NATO APP-6a symbol for both is the same. The other two Brigades field only light role battalions. --noclador (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


12th Mech has a Mech. Btn. (4 Rifles) and an Armoured Btn. (1st Fusiliers) - but I used the same symbol for both units, as 4 Rifles has no Saxons but is equipped with tracked FV430 Mk3 Bulldog (APC)s. It is definitly a heavy Armoured unit in all but name - therefore the same symbol as all the other heavy units of the British Army: commons:Category:Military OrBat Graphics/UK and thank you very much for the commendation of my work: all 100+ graphics can be found at: commons:Category:Military OrBat Graphics --noclador (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct title for "3rd (United Kingdom) Division" article

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)[reply]

It was changed to 3rd Mechanised Division in 2000 (after McNish's book was published). Dormskirk (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

The article name has to cover 200 years or so of history. Picking an overly restrictive title, and particularly one that has only been use for a relatively short - and quiet militarily speaking - time is more likely to be a hindrance than a help and sticking with the general title is not actually inaccurate. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The format of the current title might be related to the fact that divisions based in Germany had UK in the name to distinguish them from other nation's divisions under NATO. eg NORTHAG wartime structure in 1989 GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My tupence worth... if the current, correct title is 3rd (United Kingdom) Division, then surely it does not need to be disambiguated? Surely disambiguation is only needed where necessary? Hamish59 (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The current correct title is 3rd (United Kingdom) Division and that title should be used for the article. Dormskirk (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

See this result with Google Ngram Viewer I used "3rd (United Kingdom) Division" and "British 3rd Division" (or else it would return all mentions of any 3rd division no matter what nationality). These searches did not include "3rd United Kingdom division" "3rd British Division" etc, but if you look at the simple book search on "British 3rd Division" and then on "3rd (United Kingdom) Division" the numbers returned are 100s to one. -- PBS (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You make a very interesting point,PBS - and this, I think, is central to the debate. If Wikipedia uses an imprecise title such as "British 3rd Division" then search enquiries will continue to bring up unbalanced results. The Division's current, accepted name is 3rd (United Kingdom) Division which I believe should be the title for this article. I would welcome a new section within the article that listed all the previous names the 3rd Division has held, including relatively short-lived but important variations such as "3rd British Infantry Division" as used in 1944 for the D-Day landings in Normandy. -- ArmyPost (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why the policy page Naming Conventions was move to Article Title was to get away from the idea that the article title was a name. We are not comparing the two article names of "3rd (United Kingdom) Division" and "British 3rd Division" we are placing the article at the title for which most readers will look. How do I know that. I don't but Wikipedia has come up with a series of bullet points to help editors decide are
WP:CRITERIA including "Consistency" as one has to have a specialised knowledge of the quirks of the British Army naming policy to know that current name of the 3rd Division is not consistent in format with the names of most other numbered divisions of the British Army and foreign armies. So I do not think that the British Army name that incorporates British Army disambiguation is appropriate for the tile of this Wikipedia article. -- PBS (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
3rd (United Kingdom) Division is the correct name. Can it be moved please?Phd8511 (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC). The other active division wiki article is 1st (United Kingdom) Division. Why is that change allowed and not this?Phd8511 (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus (

-- Calidum 05:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

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)[reply
]

  • Agree with move.Phd8511 (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also support the move to "3rd (United Kingdom) Division" for the reasons I have outlined extensively above. It is the title that the Division has been known by for over 22 years (predating the many Army 2020 changes to the British Army), and it is increasingly referred to as such in the press. ArmyPost (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I know, I served in it. But
    WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME is for disambiguation after the common name (which is 3rd Division). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment: Why are new
11th Signal Brigade and Headquarters West Midlands accepted when all these units have a historical back ground like 3rd (United Kingdom) Division? If we are to name units based on long standing names, revert all these units to their commonly known/historical names. In that case, American units in 82nd Airborne Division should simply be known as the 82nd Division, since that unit existed long before the division was a airborne division.Phd8511 (talk) 12:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Basically, per
WP:OTHERSTUFF, although I personally served with 4th Armoured Bde, and given its service in WWII and later, I'm offended... :-) Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
And my view on
4th Brigade (United Kingdom) with a section about its names. But that's just me, I like simple. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Who defines common? The law? And how do I know you really served? I'm a General.Phd8511 (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have a read of
WP:UCN, that is how WP defines the common name. And what difference does it make if I did or not? Sweet FA. Good luck with this, though. Ooroo. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I give up

if you want to reflect inaccurate names, so go ahead and give inaccurate info.Phd8511 (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On wikipedia we decide things by consensus and at the moment there is a consensus for the change so there is no need for inaccurate information. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacy

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)[reply]

External links modified

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New website, new link

Here you go

https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/corps-regiments-and-units/3rd-united-kingdom-division/

Thanks

talk) 01:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Now inserted. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New GOC

https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/16692785.military-mod-announces-new-faces-in-command/

talk) 15:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Ironsides

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)[reply]

1st Artillery Brigade now under its command

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)[reply]

Yes, the sequence bar at the top now mentions 3 Division. But the text still says 1 Arty Bde & HQ SW is under FTC. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11th Signal Brigade

according to the British Army website is back under 6th UK division.

https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/formations-divisions-brigades/6th-united-kingdom-division/hq-11th-signal-and-west-midlands-brigade/

BlueD954 (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/formations-divisions-brigades/3rd-united-kingdom-division/ Now 11th Signal Brigade has shifted back under 3rd Div.

BlueD954 (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:3rd_(United_Kingdom)_Division&oldid=1197032109"