Talk:List of British divisions in World War II

message: Are units here supposed to be listed twice? Like the two London Divisions (1st London, 2nd London, 56th (London) and 47th (London)). Also the 42nd Infantry and 42nd Armour.--Caranorn 22:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess I just enforced what I was wondering about several months earlier. For consistency I think the list should either list all, including duplicates or only one instance of the same unit, in which case more then just the two London Divisions would require deletion.--Caranorn 20:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There is an article called 1st (African) Division which was redesignated as the 11th (African) Division. The article currently says "On 23 November 1941 the division headquarters ceased to exist."
However a British Army Division numbered 11 and often called the "11th East African Division"(second paragraph) fought in Burma. 
So I was the 11th reconstituted at some later date and if so should we include that in the article 1st (African) Division along the lines of 
:In month of year the Eleventh was reconstituted, and assigned to the British Fourteenth Army fighting against the Japanese in the Burma Campaign where it was know as the 11th East Africa[n] Division. ..."
Or should we create a new article along the lines of the 81st (West Africa) Division. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 11th (East Africa) Division is not related to the 11th (African) Division (formerly the 1st (African) Division). Essentially there should be two articles, if we go by Joslen one as 1st (African) Division covering the later redesignation to no. 11, the other covering the 11th (East Africa) Division which did indeed serve in Burma.--Caranorn 12:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, no connection = separate articles. 11 (African) was disbanded in Nov 41 and 11 (East African) created in Feb 43. They did however, have 1 brigade in common: 21 (East African).  Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 12:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eleventh Division 

message: I would like to add summary histories for the divisions listed on this page.  While practically every division listed has an article of its own with information in depth, I think it would be a useful addition to this page to have summary histories for all the divisions available at a glance.
As this list is a "mature" article, I don't wish to make a format change to the information without a discussion first.  An example of what I'd like to do:
* 1st Infantry Division - Existing division at the start of the war, with headquarters at Aldershot. Served in France from 9.39 until 6.40, North Africa from 3.43 to 12.43, Italy from 12.43 until 1.45, and in Palestine for most of 1945. Fought on the Medjez Plain, at Tunis, Anzio, and Rome, as well as along the Gothic Line. Ended the war with HQ, Palestine and Transjordan command.
The summaries would also be provided for less well-known units that don't have their own articles, like the 12th Division of the Sudan Defence Force.
Request comments on this proposal.  Thanks--W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While Mr Wilson has already described some of this idea before with me, I think it's a good idea, especially for those divisions, like the AA formations, that don't have their own articles yet. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As this proposal seems to have not brought out negative reactions, I added the summary histories to the article. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just one point: Can someone please spend the time and change dates from "7.43" to "July 1943." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 11:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary histories for divisions in this article 

message: The image for the 1st Armoured Division sign / flash should be corrected. The white rhinoceros is correct, but the surrounding red triangle dates only from the early 1980s. The World War II insignia was the rhino on a plain black rectangle. HLGallon (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formation sign gallery 

message: The image :File:Sixdivlogo.PNG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Sixdivlogo.PNG

message: Hello,
To quell any doubt I am not the Simon Trew the military historian at Sandhurst. I think only he and I share that name; we have an unspoken agreement, he doesn't pay my debts and I don't get his book advances.
I have been adding a few Normandy articles and I got here for checking if anything could be wikilinked. Indeed a lot could, but I presume deliberately it is not? Some advice would be appreciated, I am quite happy to link it up, but if you all think it is better left not linked, that's fine too. The Normandy articles vary enormously in their quality, but personally I don't see that has bearing on whether to link; the thing is to improve the article, not the link.
They shall not grow old, as we that are left grow old. Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. And at the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we shall remember them.
SimonTrew (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Links and Wikipedia:Linking#Overlinking and underlinking and Wikipedia:Build the web. --PBS (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: I have recently begun work on an article about Beauman Division, which was an improvised formation in the Battle of France 1940. Should it be included here? Alansplodge (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it was scrapped together, spur of the moment, and not long lasting, i say yes; a little known formation that (ideally) people will learn about when accessing lists such as these. The 'Other' section of the list would seem, imo, the best place?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - it shall be done. Alansplodge (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include Beauman Division? 

message: Edits were made to these sections to indicate the final command to which the divisions were subordinated at the end of the war.  The edits are sourced to Joslen's work.  An IP editor reverted the edits.IP editor -- take note this follows the format used for the infantry and airborne division sections.  Do not remove sourced material without obtaining consensus on the talk page. W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to armoured divisions article sections. 

message: * The number of divisions is one way to count the size of the army, so I changed this to  . If "manpower" or something else is meant by size, I think that should be made more explicit. 
* Changed to "occupation" as the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was only partially annexed, a detail that is outside the scope of this article. "Invasion" would also work if you think that's preferable.
*I would try to cut a few sentences from the second paragraph of the lead as this is a lot of space for background info. You could also move it to a body section called "Background" to satisfy MOS:LEAD (avoid novel info in lead that's not in the body).
* What does the source(s) say, Operation Colossus or other successes? Either way, do not use an easter egg link. Perhaps "Operation Colossus and other early commando successes..."
* I don't understand, what is "establishment" referring to here? 
*:The war establishment is the technical term used, in British related documents and books, to describe how many men a formation should have and what kind of equipment they should be equipped with. In the above example, on-paper, the division should have 12,000 men and 6,500 submachine guns. In reality, it could have more or less of both depending on a multitude of factors. I may be wrong, but I get the impression that it is the British terminology for the American TO&E.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on copyedit 

message: To justify the revert that was recently made, the inclusion of Southern Rhodesia was not supported by Joslen (which is currently the only work cited for that division). For most of the supporting arms, he does not identify the area they were recruited. However, most of the King's African Rifle battalions recruiting areas are mentioned. The following KAR battalions were in the division at some point, even briefly: 1/2nd, 2/2nd, 2nd (Nyasaland), 1/4th, 3/4th, 4/4th, 4th (Uganda), 5th (Kenya), 3/6th, 11th (Kenya), 13th (Nyasaland), 22nd (Nyasaland), 26th (Tanganyika Territory), 31st (Nyasaland), 34th (Uganda), 36th (Tanganyika Territory), 44th (Uganda), 46th Tanganyika Territory. In addition to these battalions, the division also incorporated the 1st Battalion, Northern Rhodesia Regiment. 
Nothing in Joslen outright states troops also came from Southern Rhodeisa, so we will need a RS to include that. I have made a brief search, but was unable to find anything on my first pass.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  11th (East Africa) Division and Southern Rhodesia