Talk:History of the British 1st Division (1809–1909)

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.americainwwii.com/stories/facingthefox.htm
** In 131 Armoured Division Centauro on 2011-05-23 02:55:45, 404 Not Found
** In 1st Infantry Division (United Kingdom) on 2011-05-25 06:53:04, 404 Not Found
** In 131 Armoured Division Centauro on 2011-06-01 14:41:47, 404 Not Found
** In 1st Infantry Division (United Kingdom) on 2011-06-10 03:55:28, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on 1st Infantry Division (United Kingdom). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for www.regiments.org/regiments/uk/volmil-scotland/vinf/cam-8.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080309204142/http://www.americainwwii.com:80/stories/facingthefox.htm to http://www.americainwwii.com/stories/facingthefox.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111007193843/http://british-army-units1945on.co.uk/1_Division.aspx to http://british-army-units1945on.co.uk/1_Division.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 1st 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
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) 02:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: TO say the 1st division had a very long history is misleading, since during the C19th there was a succession of divisions formed in the British army  in the course of  successive campaigns, each  of which was identified as the '1st Division' being the first in the order of battle, nothing more. 
JF42 (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a formation with a continuous existence. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1st 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/20090322060614/http://www.ra39-45.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/index.html to http://www.ra39-45.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/index.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) 23:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There was an RFC to discuss potential restructures to this and the 1st (United Kingdom) Division articles. However, the RFP ended without any consensus being reached. Rather than the info end-up being buried in the MILHIST archives, the sources have been copied to the latter article's talk page, see: Talk:1st (United_Kingdom) Division#Division's historyEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Division's history 

message: I don't understand. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: With the 2nd Division, I did the one article to cover everything approach and it came out at over 100k in size. That division, when compared to this one, was not as active in say the Second World War and was not involved in later conflicts. WP: Size suggests splitting off articles after they pass the 50k mark. So, the primary article for the 1st Division, in this case 1st (United Kingdom) Division article, is already around 40k in size and does not yet really cover the Gulf and Iraq wars. The article covering the world wars is also over 50k already, with little information about their First World War activities and little information about the fighting after Anzio. This article is, likewise, over 50k. Sure, some book citations would be merged if everything came together, but on the whole there is just too much content to provide a decent overview and be squished into one article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this a standalone article?