Talk:2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

message: It does sound a good idea to merge the earlier WW1 material about the British 2nd Division with the later material: that way you get all the material together in one place in chronological order. Also it is consistent with articles about other Divisions. Dormskirk 13:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed, especially as unlike for some higher numbered units, the 2nd was a regular formation in both World Wars, probably never being disbanded during the entire period.--Caranorn 11:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think this could be merged - if there are no objections in the next day or so, I'll do it. Carom 01:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have merged the articles please amend if I have made any mistakes in the process Dormskirk 19:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled

message: I have just completed another assessment of this article and believe it to be a Start class article, as I believe that it does not meet B class criteria 1 and 2. As such, I feel that the article could be improved by addressing the following:
* Referencing: for a successful B class review, every paragraph or block of information (i.e. list) requires an in line citation (more if multiple sources are used, or multiple challengable assertions are made);
* Coverage: the article is very focused upon the order of battle for the divisiion, rather than the indivdual actions in which it fought. This information is great, but there needs to be a section that ties everything together and discusses what the division did in the major wars/engagements it has fought in. Currently the introduction is very long, so I would suggest maybe using that as the basis of a section called History and rewriting the intro so it is a little bit more concise.
Just a couple of ideas, if you would like more in depth feedback, please consider listing the article for peer review. This can be done by going to WP:MHPR. When you feel that the article is ready for re-assessment, please add it to the list at WP:MHA. Hope this helps. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rating and improvements

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 2nd Infantry 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/20150705211343/http://www.gulabin.com/armynavy/pdf/Army%20Commands%201900-2011.pdf to http://www.gulabin.com/armynavy/pdf/Army%20Commands%201900-2011.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304013015/http://www.army.mod.uk:80/structure/2080.aspx to http://www.army.mod.uk/structure/2080.aspx
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) 17:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm slightly puzzled by the scope of this article. The pre-Boer War "2nd Infantry Divisions" seem to be entirely different military units who had the same name. Per WP:DICTIONARY we don't do articles on terms. Is there a MILHIST guideline that suggests different military units of the same name get covered by the one article? DeCausa (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: On the whole, I would agree with you: that one article would not cover every formation that bore the same name if there were no direct link between them. Wyrall, cited in the article, states that certain formations were one and the same (see the opening of the Victorian Era section for the flashed-out part). If memory has not faded, the primary reason I ended up expanding this article was because of the reason you cited. I had worked on the 2nd Armoured Division article, which included the information from this article's 2nd Armoured Division, 1976–1982 section, and reviewers highlighted that despite the same name they were different formations and to place it in this article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article scope?