Talk:2nd Canadian Division

message: I propose that Land Force Quebec Area be merged into 2nd Canadian Division, per this press release issued 8 July 2013. Plasma east (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Support I would think that a new section or sections would be added to bring us through 1946 to the present. Although details can be sorted later. trackratte (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

text: If the merger is supported by the community, wait at least for the rename to be effective before doing it. For now, the renaming of Land Force Areas has only been announced, it isn't effective yet. Amqui (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Support The renaming is to be a gradual process, without a definate changeover date, so the article may as well be renamed sooner rather than later. GrahamNoyes (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As rename has been effective for some time now, the two articles in question have been merged (all text from the LFQA article was inserted). trackratte (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: When I was browsing through WP:FA recently (out of simple interest in the articles, not in my 'professional' capacity as FAC delegate/coordinator) I came across this article, which turned out not be FA at all but Start-Class. Upon further investigation it appeared that 2nd Canadian Infantry Division had been promoted to FA in December 2008 (see FAC) and then been merged with this article in July this year. Now merges happen but I can't see any extensive discussion on the reason for the merge in the 2nd Infantry Division article's talk page and I'm interested in determining whether it was truly valid. Cam, the nominator of the FAC, maintained in the FAC discussion that the two formations were not synonymous. If that's so the merger should be reversed and the 2nd Infantry Division can keep its place among WP's Featured Articles. If the merge is in fact reasonable, then this article will obviously have to be removed from WP:FA. Information/opinions please, as I'm no expert on the Canadian Army. FYI, Cam hasn't been around for some time but I'm inviting him to this discussion, likewise the people who appear to have merged the articles, and I'm issuing a general invitation on WT:MILHIST. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day all, I don't have specific knowledge of the Canadian situation, so I'm more than happy to defer to those that do (in that regard, please feel free to revert my changes if you disagree with them). The changes I made were an attempt to try to make the claimed lineage clearer, but I think currently the article is overbalanced towards the Second World War (not a criticism, just an observation). This is no doubt a product of its previous existence as a separate article that focused on that topic. From what little I know of Canada's involvement in the world wars, if the two formations are in fact a single entity, this article could be very big as Canada played a very significant role in both wars, so it might lend itself to being split eventually anyway. That said, if the article is to stay merged, I think it requires work to rebalance it by providing more information on the First World War and on the division's current existence. I look forward to hearing other opinions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Change of command does not mean there history should be merged.  Also concerning that the merger content has no sources at all and thus has defaced an FA article. Much more care should be taken in mergers of this nature...more effort involved in making sure the content is verifiable for our readers.  --Moxy (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is the thing. I can't see any discussion on the FA's talk page about the merger so at this stage it looks like one editor did it off his own bat (but not the talk page, which another took care of, perhaps simply to tidy up) and against that we have the main editor's statement in the FAC nomination that the two formations should be treated separately.  If no-one comes forward soon to show that a discussion took place somewhere, or presents clear evidence that the two formations should be treated as one, I'd say the merge should be reversed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

text: In the First Division article it states that the division was 'remobilised' at the outbreak of the Second World War (although this is unreferenced). I suspect the distinction between demobilising an existing unit and raising a new formation are key to this discussion, but I can't see much in the articles to lead it either way. However, this link may help. I'll try and find time to look through it today.   Ranger Steve Talk 07:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd Canadian Infantry Division vs. 2nd Canadian Division 

message: See Wikipedia:Featured article review/2nd Canadian Infantry Division/archive1.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR and merge discussion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on 2nd Canadian Division. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120222004625/http://www.army.dnd.ca/rdechaud/qg-hq/historique-history-eng.aspx?action=view&id=historique-history to http://www.army.dnd.ca/rdechaud/qg-hq/historique-history-eng.aspx?action=view&id=historique-history
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: G'day, currently there appear to be a few redlinks for the First World War constituent brigades:
* 4th Brigade (Canada)
* 5th Brigade (Canada)
* 6th Brigade (Canada)
However, the Second World War brigades have the following blue links:
* 4th Canadian Infantry Brigade
* 5th Canadian Infantry Brigade
* 6th Canadian Infantry Brigade
To me, it seems these were really the same formation, albeit with a slightly different name in the Second World War. Essentially, though, the First World War formation was also an infantry formation, just without the designation. While the constituent battalions in the two wars were different, that is not without precedent as many brigades will change over the course of their existence (Australian Army brigades, by way of an example, are quite fluid). So, my question is, should the redlinks (i.e. 4th Brigade (Canada) be created as redirects to the other articles (e.g. 4th Canadian Infantry Brigade), with the scope of the blue linked article being expanded to include the First World War also?  I guess my concern is that one article that covers the brigade in the First and Second World Wars seems to make more sense than two smaller articles. Are there any opinions on this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just adjusted the links as it didn't seem to make sense to create another redirect. I've now merged the 4th to include World War I and World War II (having also found another duplicative article 4th Infantry Brigade (Canada), which I've now merged also. I plan to work on the 5th and 6th articles soon, too. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Constituent brigades