Talk:3rd (United Kingdom) Division

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 laid out in AT policy. Common name is a metric used by Wikipedia editors to approximate what is "recognizable" and "natural" for most readers who are "familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject". Therefore based on the policy we can assume that people will be familiar with the imprecise name used in reliable sources they will probably search for the 3rd Division. The problem is that we can not use that title because anyone looking for any other nation's 3rd divisions will probably use the same search, so the name has to be disambiguated. As I said above I disproved of standardising on a convenient disambiguation method that suites Americans and their forces,  but that horse has long since bolted. This means that most British divisions are in the format "number [arm] Division (United Kingdom)".  In this case to style this article by arm would be misleading as for most of its history it was an infantry division but more recently it is an armoured division, so "3rd Division (United Kingdom)" ticks all the boxes in 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)
replies: text: 3rd (United Kingdom) Division is the correct name. Can it be moved please?Phd8511 (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct title for "3rd (United Kingdom) Division" article 

message: if you want to reflect inaccurate names, so go ahead and give inaccurate info.Phd8511 (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I give up 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fallacy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130418031611/http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/Army2020_brochure.pdf to http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/Army2020_brochure.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150705211343/http://www.gulabin.com/armynavy/pdf/Army%20Commands%201900-2011.pdf to http://www.gulabin.com/armynavy/pdf/Army%20Commands%201900-2011.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141218191852/http://www.ra39-45.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/field/page76.html to http://www.ra39-45.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/field/page76.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120424021033/http://www.ra39-45.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/field/page7.html to http://www.ra39-45.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/field/page7.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140522195608/http://www.ra39-45.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/field/page33.html to http://www.ra39-45.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/field/page33.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120424021121/http://www.ra39-45.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/atk/page3.html to http://www.ra39-45.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/atk/page3.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) 05:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: Now inserted. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New website, new link 

message: https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/16692785.military-mod-announces-new-faces-in-command/
Sammartinlai (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New GOC 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ironsides 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  1st Artillery Brigade now under its command 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  11th Signal Brigade