Talk:1st Armoured Division (Australia)

message: As part of my expansion of the Divisional history, I've restored my statement that the Division was disbanded in September 1943 with 1st Armoured Brigade surviving as an independant brigade. As 1st Armoured Brigade was a pre-existing unit prior to September 1943 it is not correct to state that the division was 'downsized to a brigade group'. Rather, most of the Division's units (including the Divisional HQ) were disbanded with the surviving units coming under the command of 1st Armoured Brigade. My source for this is Australian Armour. A History of the Royal Australian Armoured Corps 1927-1972 by Major General R.N. Hopkins (see page 129). --Nick Dowling 05:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nick, I guess it's a question of interpretation, as was my (now deleted) statement that the division was never fully-formed. A brigade group (a concept which was used widely by Commonwealth armies in WW2) is not a brigade; it is more accurately defined as a unit with the fighting strength of a brigade but all the other attributes (support staff, logistics, etc) of a division. Likewise I'm not sure that a "division" with only two brigades could be described as full-formed, but as I say it's a matter of opinion and I'm not that bothered about it. Grant65 | Talk 03:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Grant, British pattern armoured divisions like the 1st Armoured only had 2 Brigades + supporting elements. Hopkins, who was a key player in the formation and design of the division, states that it was at full strength by early 1943. The 2nd and 3rd Armoured Divisions never reached their full strength though. --Nick Dowling 09:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Fair enough, I didn't know that. Grant65 | Talk 11:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st Armoured Division disbandment 

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://home.adelphia.net/~dryan67/orders/army.html
** In 1st Armoured Division (Australia) on 2011-05-25 06:51:14, 404 Not Found
** In 1st Armoured Division (Australia) on 2011-06-09 12:50:02, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

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.ordersofbattle.com/UnitData.aspx?UniX=6476&Tab=Sub
** In 1st Armoured Division (Australia) on 2011-06-09 12:53:04, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
** In 1st Armoured Division (Australia) on 2011-06-10 03:19:22, 404 Not Found
** In 1st Support Group (Australia) on 2011-06-10 04:29:39, 404 Not Found
** In 1st Armoured Division (Australia) on 2011-06-25 13:12:00, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
--JeffGBot (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: – IRT your recent rewording of the lead to “The 1st Armoured Division was an armoured division" per diffs here  and here  as I said in my previous edit summary this wording is redundant and is pretty much the same as writing "an apple is an apple" and does not tell our readers anything they shouldn't already know from the article title. Equally, your insertion of flags into the infobox seems contrary to MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and general consensus elsewhere on their use. For these reasons I have partially reverted your changes again (some of the infobox additions do seem helpful though). I have now changed the first sentence to read: "The 1st Armoured Division was an armoured formation" which at least is not tautological in entirety even if it still is partially redundant. If you still feel that the lead needs to be changed I request you take the time to discuss your reasons here per WP:Bold, Revert, Discuss and develop a consensus before making this change again. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent change to lead and infobox flags – March 2016 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1st Armoured Division (Australia). 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/20131102010340/http://www.army.gov.au/Our-future/LWSC/Our-publications/Australian-Army-Journal/Past-issues/~/media/Files/Our%20future/LWSC%20Publications/AAJ/2012Autumn/08-TheBirthLifeAndDeathOfT.pdf to http://www.army.gov.au/Our-future/LWSC/Our-publications/Australian-Army-Journal/Past-issues/~/media/Files/Our%20future/LWSC%20Publications/AAJ/2012Autumn/08-TheBirthLifeAndDeathOfT.pdf
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) 22:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified