Talk:British Divisions in World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the British Divisions in World War II article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

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)

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)

Contents

[edit] Eleventh Division

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Summary histories for divisions in this article

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)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] British divisional article titles

There is a significant degree of confusion in the article titles, and also in the claims made by Indian and Pakistani articles to lineage of the British Indian Army.

Where the part of the division title is not Arm of Service, it needs to be in (London) form. All need to have the (United Kingdom) added.

British Divisions in World War II

  • 1st Infantry Division (United Kingdom)
  • 1st Armoured Division (United Kingdom)
  • 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom)
  • 2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom)
  • 2nd London Infantry Division
  • 3rd Infantry Division (United Kingdom)
  • 4th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)
  • 5th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)
  • 6th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)
  • 6th Armoured Division (United Kingdom)
  • 7th Armoured Division (United Kingdom)
  • 8th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)
  • 8th Armoured Division (United Kingdom)
  • 9th (Highland) Infantry Division
  • 9th Armoured Division (United Kingdom)
  • 1st (African) Division
  • 10th Armoured Division (United Kingdom)
  • 11th Armoured Division (United Kingdom)
  • 11th (East Africa) Division
  • 12th (Eastern) Division
  • 15th (Scottish) Division
  • 2nd (African) Division
  • 23rd (Northumbrian) Division
  • 36th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)
  • 38th (Welsh) Division
  • 40th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)
  • 42nd (East Lancashire) Division
  • 42nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom)
  • 43rd (Wessex) Infantry Division
  • 44th (Home Counties) Infantry Division
  • 45th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)
  • 46th (North Midland) Division

The problem of lineage claims came to my attention via the 7th Indian Infantry Division wich has inexplicably been linked to the Pakistani Army.

However, the issue is much greater with the Indian Army divisional articles.

list of Indian divisions in WWII.

[edit] list break

Needless to say no Army belonging to a state's government which had not yet come into existence before 1945 can claim unit participation in the Second World War. Besides this rather obvious fact, when the equipment and personnel of the former British Indian Army divisions were transferred to the newly created national armies of India and Pakistan, the British units had already been disbanded by an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom. Moreover, the new Indian and Pakistani divisions were brought into being by the Acts of Parliaments of their two respective governments. No campaign participation or awards can be claimed by these new divisions, and no lineage exists although I understand that many had adopted British Army formation badges for their own insignia.

Then again, I could be wrong, but I would like to be shown the reason if that is the case.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

the British Army is not the Army of the United Kingdom it is the Crown's army so (United Kingdom) is wrong -- See British Army#Oath of allegiance. The government of the United Kingdom is Her Majesty's Government but the Army and the government are constitutionally linked through the Queen not directly. Therefore it is much better to call them British xx Division. This sticking the state at the end was pushed through by a number of predominantly US editors who do not seem to understand that not all Armies take an oath of allegiance to a constitution but are basically feudal in the power they owe allegiance too. There has little practical difference, but one that came up after the cold war was a previous head of the Royal Navy explaining that if the prime minister had gone mad and wanted a nuke France (or some other enemy) then as a serving officer he could refuse to carry out the "request" because the prime minister is not in the chain of command (nor is any other civilian minister) and can not "order" an officer of the armed services to do anything.
As to the Indian Army that is the convention. British India and the British Indian Army is a convenience we use on Wikipedia but that is just for clarity. The Indian state existed as a separate corporate identity before independence. For example do a Google search on ["India declares war on Japan"] --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the problem with using (United Kingdom), given that the army effectively acts for the UK state. As for the Indian divisions, their contemporary names would have been "7th Indian Division" etc, wouldn't they? A qualifier might be required for clarity. Perhaps "(pre-1947)" or "(British India)"? Leithp 10:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Yes, and this is how I understood it also. The India Independence Act 1947 has the King specifically terminating this for all Armed forces of the Crown in India as per the Army Act...unless I have misread the Act. The only exemptions were made for the four Gurkha regiments. I fail to see how the US editors in Wikipedia can change what is in United Kingdom covered by an Act of same Parliament. In any case, there is quite a bit of inconsistency even if that is used.
It was US editors who wanted to move from putting British US or whatever before the division in article names and placing the state in brackets afterwards. That is to do with the naming of British units and I am not suggesting it has anything to do with the transfer of regiments between armies! --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "convention" in regards to the Indian Army. How is that related to what I understand to be the disbandment of the British Indian Army? I will do more research at the library tomorrow, but my understanding is that the corporate powers of the British Raj were not transferred to the new Indian national Government.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Leithp, the issue is that there was little difference in terms of British and British Indian Armies' relationship to the King. The would all be British 7th Indian Infantry Division as Philip explained.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The issue with the 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan) and 8th Infantry Division (India) is that they were British divisions, but claim lineage for national divisions of the post-Independence armed forces.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
For ease of reference List of Indian divisions in WWII, British Indian Army, Army of India, Commander-in-Chief in India and Indian Army
The British Indian Army did not exist it was the Indian Army (British). The terminology for the units in all three armed services is one of continuation not of recreation. For example the British Army says
At the time of the partition of India there were ten Gurkha regiments in the Indian Army, each regiment consisting of a number of battalions. As a result of negotiations between the Nepalese, British and Indian Governments (known as the ‘Tripartite Agreement’) four of these regiments, each of two battalions were transferred to the British Army, the remainder staying with the new Indian Army.[1]
Note it says "transferred" and "staying" not disbanded and recreated and certainly in the case of the British Gurkhas their regimental battle honours include those before 1947, I don't know what they officially do in the Indian army but their web page indicates a similar attitude [2] on this issue. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, three could not be a non-British Indian Army before 1947 with statements like this (from an Indian site) "Indianisation of Army started with the grant of King's Commission to 31 trusted Indians including KM Cariappa who later became the first Indian Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army. As feeder institution, the Prince of Wales Royal Indian Military College was set up at Debra Dun in 1922 with a view to providing necessary preliminary training to Indian boys for entry into the Military College in England."
Clearly the pre-1947 Independence armed forces in Indian were British (legally speaking) since even the Indian officers could only serve via the grant of King's Commission.
As a matter of factual accuracy the four Gurkha regiments were not transferred from the Indian Army to the British Army, but from Indian Army (British) rolls to the British Army (Regular) rolls wit appropriate seniority. The Indian Government was not involved. The involvement of the Indian Government was only concerning how this affected the overall division of forces between it and Pakistan.
How could this have occurred in an English reference work? If Wikipedia can't get the recent history of United Kingdom correct, what hope for elsewhere and else-when?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The Queen is not only Queen of the United Kingdom she is also Queen of lots of other places. One would not usually consider the Australian armed forces to be the British armed forces just because they both owe allegiance to the Queen. To make in clear please read the first couple of sentences of the Indian Army which was commanded by Commander-in-Chief in India who reported to the Viceroy and Governor-General of India who was appointed by the Crown. And although in practice they were British government appointees, AFAICT they were also representatives of a state. But I am sure that there are other editors who are much more qualified to explain this than I --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

My two pennyworth. Firstly, to avoid confusion, units must be referred to in historical articles by the title by which they were known or commonly referred to at the time. Secondly, I have no objection to formally entitling unit names in articles with enough qualifiers to differentiate them; for example, Indian 5th Infantry Division (British Indian Army), or if you prefer, Indian 5th Infantry Division (Indian Army (British)), though to my mind the second example has too many brackets. Whoever undertakes the task of renaming has a lot of links to fix, and I'm a little too busy at the moment. HLGallon (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly pedantic (and proud of it), so I will quote a document by the former C-in-C of the Army, Field-Marshal Sir Claude J.E. Auchinleck who must be one of the best sources possible on the name of the Army:
  • SPECAL INDIA ARMY ORDER
by
His Excellency Field-Marshal Sir Claude J.E. Auchinleck
G.C.B., G.C.I.E., C.S.I., D.S.O., O.B.E.
Commander-in-Chief India
New Delhi, 14 August 1947
S.I.A.O. 79/S/47 Discontinuance of India Army orders.
This is the last India Army order.
R.A.Savory Lieutenant-General
Adjutant-General in India
(p.898, Auchinleck, A critical biography, John Connell, Cassell, London, 1959)
So, it seems to me the the correct way to define pre-Independence units is (for example) 12th Field Artillery Regiment (India Army).--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I am the person who split the Indian Army article into two creating the British Indian Army. I am not sure it should be done for untis because that logic leads to two articles for 2nd King Edward VII's Own Gurkha Rifles (The Sirmoor Rifles), which I think is a nonsense. If Indian Army sources commonly consider the history of regiments to span both sides of independence then they should be left as on article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly it seems to me that the correct article name would be British India Army as per order above.
What Indian Army sources say is inconsequential POV unless they can also show how this lineage is traced via legal and administrative process. As you will see from my post on the 7th Division, a secondary source from the Indian Army itself disputes this claim. I suggest that unless someone can illustrate through use of sources otherwise, the articles on Indian Army that claim and contain histories of the British India Army need to be split into two, e.g. 1st Gurkha regiment (India Army), and 1st Gorkha regiment (India)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

mrg3105 in 1948 the southern Irish government changed from the Irish Free State to the Republic of Ireland, should the 3rd Infantry Battalion (Ireland) of the Irish Army be broken into two articles? France changed from the Fourth to the Fifth French Republic, in 1958 should all French army units be disambiguated by state, and initially after independence the Indian state was a dominion it became the Republic of India in 1950, so should there be three articles for each Indian unit disambiguated by state? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Philip, neither Ireland nor France had created new states, only changed how the political systems worked. I.e. the Fifth French Republic did not declare itself independent from the Fourth Republic. The change in India, and Pakistan, was far more profound then your examples.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So now you are making judgements about what is the creation of a new state. It seems to me that this is rapidly becoming a matter of opinion and not a simple rule. 11 years years ago there was a serious constitutional debate in SA if the UK Parliament had to pass an act in regards to the legitimacy of the new democratic state of South Africa or if Mandla's government should simply declare its statehood -- in the end the South African government chose the latter. So when exactly would you consider that SA became the state it is today? In the case of India, India has been a member of the UN since, 30 October 1945 so what is the difference between the three forms of government that it has had since then and the governments of France? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not a judgement, but a fact. A new Independent India was created in 1947. The fact that it was admitted to the UN in 1945 has no bearing on the matter since the representative was a British appointee. Have a look a the representation of the former Soviet republics at the UN. And yet you can't tell me they are different states since 1993. However the case of India and Pakistan are very different. They were not like South Africa, but rather a part of a state called the British Empire. Pakistan had no independent identity before 1947, and India's identity was only in the governance by proxy of the Viceroy. You may be surprised that there was (I think no longer) a British North American territories Act which applied to Canada well past it becoming an independent country also by the way, but I don't see how comparison can be made between these different national circumstances. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Typically, the British handed over to a new government not a new state. This is because as often as not the British first created the system they wanted to hand over to, and then simply installed the first generation of new rules who might or might not choose to continue with that form of government. For example in the case of India, the difference between the day before the Dominion of India and the day after would not have been great as the civil service, judges, railway staff, etc all stayed in place. The enabling act, the Indian Independence Act 1947, specifically say that:

10. (1) The provision of this Act keeping in force provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935, shall not continue in force the provisions of that Act relating to appointments to the civil services of, and civil posts under, the Crown in India by the secretary of State, or the provisions of that Act relating to the reservation of posts.
(2) Every person who-
(a) having been appointed by the Secretary of State, or Secretary of State in Council, to a civil service of the Crown in India continues on the after the appointed day to serve under the Government of either of the new Dominions or of any Province or Part thereof; ...
...
11. (1) The orders to be made by the Governor-General under the preceding provision of this Act shall make provision for the divisions of the Indian armed forces of His Majesty between the new dominions, and for the command and governance of those forces until the division is completed.
(2) as from the appointed day, while any number of His Majesty's forces, other then His Majesty's Indian forces, is attached to or serving with any of His Majesty Indian forces-
(a) He shall, subject to any provision to the country made by a law of the Legislature of the Dominion or Dominions concerned or by any other of the Governor-General under the preceding provisions of this Act, have, in relation to the Indian forces in question, the powers of command punishment appropriate to his rank and functions; but
(b) nothing in any enactment in forces at the date of the passing of this Act shall render his subject in any way to the law governing the Indian forces in questions.

– Wikisource:Indian Independence Act 1947

As far as I can tell this does not say that the army was disbanded but that they remain under the command of the Governor-General (Louis Mountbatten until command was handed over to the new governments. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Philip, this is a case where the Act did not reflect the actual. It is something one has to research to understand, but the Act was arrived at over a period of nearly a year in often bitter 'discussion', and on the Indian side included several full time British-trained lawyers. The case with Mountbatten was entirely political because he wanted the GG job, and was prepared to do anything to get it.
Mrg, please get your facts right - it does not reflect well on your other arguments when you make mistakes like this. Mountbatten, as is said in Collins & LaPierre's 'Freedom at Midnight' (1982), and in Lapping's 'End of Empire,' was so worried at the prospect of failure that he demanded unprecedented powers from the PM & Cabinet, and on several occasions said he would resign his office unless certain things were done or provided (an aircraft, or with V. Patel over a civil service appointment). While he may have been making bluffs, one CANNOT say 'he would do anything to get it' - rather, he was horrified at the necessity of India leaving the Empire and of the bloodshed and turmoil involved, and, though it's not exactly stated directly, it very much implies that he was reluctant to be the Viceroy. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

However, a GG is not the CinC of the armed forces, so where the Act was concerned it only referred to the functional powers required of GG in his interaction with the military commander, and that would be the new CinC of the Indian forces after 1947, which would be the Ministry of Defence under a Cabinet Minister in August 1947, and not the GG (it had been a Defence Department in British administration since 1938). On August 15, 1947, each Service was placed under its own Commander-in-Chief. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces vested in the President.

The senior commanders in the new Dominions (states) were decided by Indians without British input, and the officers formerly of the India Command were promoted before they had completed their courses for the ranks to enable them to take command in the new forces. The same process occurred in the Civil Service due to the large number of British civil servants that would leave India. So, yes, there were huge changes in the administration of India, what with tens of thousands of senior, middle and junior management and administration personnel leaving over a period of a few months. It was a loss of experience and human capital that India never recovered from.
Although the Act guaranteed employment for those in their positions, this was not the case in practice. For a start Muslims were almost universally dismissed soon after, and the same occurred in Pakistan. Secondly, in some parts of India employment took on decidedly ethnic and tribal character. Thirdly, the political factions that epitomise Indian public service even today were instrumental in securing positions for their own members wherever possible, including with transfer of less politically adroit British appointees. This was as rife in the military as it was in the civil service.
The removal of the King from the legislative structure under which armed forces were created in India dissolved the entire structure of command and administration. Preparations for this were made as early as 1945, and most of the higher Head Quarters had already been dissolved or devolved to regional Commands, i.e. the formal removal of these HQs from the OOB. No Army or Corps HQs were handed over to the new states, and the only reason the divisions were supposedly handed over is because they were still providing administration to the garrisoned Command units. However their combat support sub-units had been disbanded in 1946, and assets placed in storage.
Can you provide a source for this assertion? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is because the combat support units required technical Corps personnel, and these came from, and departed to the UK.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

PS. It was brought to my attention that the official name under which India was admitted to the United Nations before its Independence was the Indian Empire.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unit histories

This may not be the right place to voice it, but it seems to me that unit articles need to be named for initial unit name with redirects to other names, and not most convenient or famous, since that may change in future. E.g The Sirmoor Battalion (India Army) and not 2nd King Edward VII's Own Gurkha Rifles (The Sirmoor Rifles).--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be both impractical and inaccurate. Unless you're suggessting that the King's Regiment (Liverpool), 63rd Regiment of Foot, Manchester Regiment, and Duke of Lancaster's Regiment be merged with the 8th Regiment of Foot. In the "Commonwealth system", as has been explained, regiments absorb the histories of their predecessors - whether those predecessors were amalgamted or redesignated. The whole process of amalgamation is designed to absorb and perpetuate the collective histories and traditions into a "new" regiment (hence why the 2nd Gurkha Rifles had the "Sirmoor Rifles" suffix incorporated into their official title). That is convention and articles on Wikipedia must reflect that military reality. Yes, it's "peculiar" but it is the system that exists nonetheless. SoLando (Talk) 12:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a naming convention in Wikipedia for units that lists name and nation in brackets. Each distinct unit has a history, and a nation. When you get to the point in the King's Regiment (Liverpool) history when it became the 63rd Regiment of Foot, you simply insert a ling to the new article. The form for the regimental names would be King's (Liverpool) Regiment (Britain) and 63rd Regiment of Foot (Britain)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Mrg. The use of national suffixes, years, etc are for the disambiguation of articles with generic titles like the 1st Infantry Division and 1st Tank Regiment. Not for unique titles like the King's Regiment (Liverpool). Current conventions recommend that articles exist at either the official name or most common name - there has long been a strong preference for that. So, if the official name of the 2nd Gurkha Rifles was the 2nd King Edward VII's Own Gurkha Rifles (The Sirmoor Rifles) - and it was - that is where it (and its predecessors) should be located. As MILMOS states:
When a unit or base has had multiple names over the course of its existence, the title should generally be the last name used; however, exceptions can be made in cases where the subject is clearly more commonly known by one of the previous names
And we should especially adhere to that if a renamed unit isn't viable as an independent article, i.e. if being a micro sub-stub is what it is destined to be. There are, however, many exceptions. I'll use my personal project the King's as an example: 8th (The King's) Regiment of Foot was retitled the King's (Liverpool Regiment) on 1 July 1881; however, there are two distinct articles because informal convention has been to maintain separate articles for the pre-1881 regiments of foot and their successors, and in this instance the substantial history is also a factor. Now the King's Regiment (Liverpool) amalgamated with the Manchester Regiment, which had been created by the grouping of the 63rd (itselt created by the redesignation of the 2nd Battalion of the 8th Foot) and 96th in 1881, to form the King's Regiment (Manchester and Liverpool) in 1958. The sub-title was later omitted and the King's Regiment was recently amalgamated into the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment.
Units created through amalgamation have been consistently accorded an independent article, whereas mere redesignations and title revisions have understandably proven to be haphazard. They're generally incorporated into an article titled under a unit's final/current designation, which is the most practical approach as you need only review the 7th Battalion, King's Regiment (Liverpool) which was redesignated the 40th Royal Tank Regiment). As was noted with frequency in that....protracted AFD, regiments are exceedingly complex entities. SoLando (Talk) 12:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, its a stupid rule. Unit names change, so this will require perpetual movement and amalgamation of article titles. So, say 200 years form now Wikipedia is still around, but the vestiges of King's Regiment (Liverpool) are a part of the 143rd North European Union Company, and somewhere down in the midst of the article will be reference to the King's Regiment (Liverpool).
This is a reference work and not the British Army, so there is no place for "informal conventions" like the officers always come through the right mess door or some idiosyncrasy. Reference works require a consistent approach. Do you imagine there is only one King's Regiment in Human history? Do you think there was ever a state named Liverpool? It is only the archaic names of British infantry regiments that make them different to the other 63rd Infantry Regiments of Europe and elsewhere. It seems to me it is a much better approach to write separate unit articles for each distinctly named unit, and include in the articles of merged units links to their legacy constituents. Far less confusion. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
We essentially went through this at the AFD. Official names or the most common name takes precedence. We reflect the verifiable reality. We don't construct an alternative in its place solely for Wikipedia. We are here to accurately represent the reliable/official/etc sources available to us. Whether other units entitled the King's Regiment have existed is inconsequential: we don't pre-emptively disambiguate an article and the most notable of them all usually has precedence over others (for example, the city of Liverpool is not disambiguated Liverpool, England). The sub-title "Liverpool" was indeed an integral part of the regiment's title (it would be comparable to removing the "New" from New York). The King's Regiment was a city regiment affiliated with Liverpool, parts of Lancashire, and the Isle of Man but was officially Liverpool's own.
Maintaining articles for each unit after a retitling would be......ridiculous in all due respect to your opinion. Each article would consist of less than a paragraph in most instances; I wouldn't be surprised if they were speedied. Redirects and separate disambiguation pages exist precisely for this reason. Creating distinct pages for each renaming would cause undue confusion, be impractical, and disrupt the flow of an article. They would not be viable. It's completely different for regiments created through amalgamation, for they are nominally distinct regiments regardless of the perpetuation of their predecessors. SoLando (Talk) 14:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It is disingenuous to say that the most current name would be the best known! However, Wikipedia is not a news source, but one of reference. An article need not be of a specific size to be a viable reference article. There is no criteria for deletion based on size.
A subject of an entry of a reference work needs to be a relatively discrete item of knowledge.
I had a look at the regimental association site, and they think that the regimen's association with Liverpool only dates from the 1873 [3] and "...when the regiment was allocated to the 13th Brigade Depot in Liverpool. It seems they and some other online sources think that the correct way to title the regiments from this time was The King's (Liverpool Regiment), and not the King's Regiment (Liverpool), so if you do want to "accurately represent the reliable/official/etc sources available to us", why do you " construct an alternative in its place solely for Wikipedia"? In fact this is clear from the redirect in the 8th (The King's) Regiment of Foot last sentence where the 1881 and 1921 names are merged. If it is true that the most common name is used, and the most common name today is The King's Regiment, then why not use only that and incorporate all regiments and battalions the regiment represents today, transferring the list of these into the article? Surely their would make for an even larger article and will clearly show all the regimens and battalions of the past that are now represented by a single battalion. In truth though a historian knows that every discrete entity in military history had a purpose for existing, and has a separate history. An entire Front on the Eastern Front of the Second World War that existed for a couple of days has a history worthy of a full length article (yet to be written), so surely battalions and regiments of the British Army that span decades have such histories which might eventually be written.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe so. We must be pragmatic here and recognise that a 17th Century French regiment named the King's will be universally less known compared to such an extensively documented unit like the King's Regiment (Liverpool), its successor the King's Regiment and the present Duke of Lancaster's egiment. Articles that lack either/both context and sufficent content can be speedied under criterion A1 and A3. If an article consists of a few sentences and lacks context, it's liable to be CSD'ed
That website actually plagiarises the article I wrote. I'm proud but there should be attribution :-D. You've somewhat misunderstood the history and certainly the process of retitling. The 8th of Foot was affiliated with Liverpool in 1873 as part of the Cardwell reforms. The Childers reforms was the logical conclusion: the 8th was redesignated the King's (Liverpool Regiment) on 1 July 1881 and acquired a regimental boundary that encompassed Liverpool, parts of Lancashire, and the Isle of Man - although the official title is somewhat disputed and rendered King's (Liverpool) Regiment. I've always been inclined to assume that the confusion was the the result of the Liverpool Regiment being the original proposed title (without any explicit reference to the 8th). Intriguingly, it was planned for the 8th to be affiliated with Leicestershire. Thankfully, that wasn't realised.
What is known is that the unit was officially retitled in 1921 as the King's Regiment (Liverpool) - there was no separation between the the pre-1921 King's and the post-1921 King's. It was merely a superficial title revision applied to most regiments in the British Army that year (I've unfortunately never determined why). Please be more meticulous in your research. I've dedicated so many years to expanding Wikipedia's coverage of the King's, related units and people.
Again, you don't appear to appreciate the dynamics of the Commonwealth system. Superficial revisions to a unit's title shouldn't merit a distinct article. Articles on pre-1881 regiments of foot exist because there is such a wealth of information available for them and because they are essentially fundamentally different to their post-1881 descendents, despite the lack of merging with other units by some in the British Army Order of Precedence. Units created through amalgamation are demonstratively distinct from their predecessors, despite being the lineal perpetuation of the amalgamated, and therefore automatically gain an article by being new creations.
If you're arguing that each battalion/unit should have its own article, then I agree! Albeit, if that unit is viable as an article. Finally, we agree! ;-) But if you're arguing that each title revision warrants an independent article, I do not. You must distinguish between superficial retitling and the creation of distinct units, either through redesignation or amalgamation. Unamalgamated regiments in the British Army pre-2007 underwent a staggering array of title changes which did not signify a "new" beginning - and presumably the same applies to all militaries. These revisions are integrated into articles under a unit's final title precisely because of that. To do otherwise would be inaccurate and detrimentral to an article's flow and viability. Utilise redirects and disambig' pages for alternative titles. I'll provide an example:
  • 1715.02.15 The Princess of Wales's Own Regiment of Dragoons re-formed without loss of precedence from troops of 1st Dragoons and 2nd Dragoons; re-named for the future Queen Caroline
  • 1727 The Queen's Own Regiment of Dragoons (redesignated when the Princess of Wales became Queen)
  • 1751.07.01 7th (The Queen's Own) Regiment of Dragoons
  • 1783 7th (or Queen's Own) Regiment of (Light) Dragoons
  • 1807.12.25 7th (The Queen's Own) Regiment of (Light) Dragoons (Hussars)
  • 1861.08.17 7th (The Queen's Own) Hussars 7th (Queen's Own) Hussars
  • 1921.01.01 7th Queen's Own Hussars
  • 1939.04 transferred to Royal Armoured Corps
  • 1958.11.03 amalgamated with 3rd The King's Own Hussars, to form The Queen's Own Hussars
Multiple revisions but which do not signify a new, distinct regiment, in contrast to the Queen's Own Hussars created by the aforementioned 7th's amalgamation. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 11:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)