Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (military units)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These naming conventions are intended to encourage consistency and a high scholarly standard in articles that refer to military units. As mentioned in the conventions, they are intended to guide the use of names within articles, as well as the names of articles.

Ideally we will expand this to cover all nations at all periods, noting any exceptions to the more general conventions. (The initial draft is very slanted toward the German WWII order of battle, but that's mere happenstance.)

A bit of bureaucracy...

It will be helpful if we preserve the structure of the article here, to make it easier to find comments about a topic. Thus the structure is reproduced below; if you have comments that do not fit the structure, please add them to a new section at the end.

If you add multiple sequential bullets or paragraphs to this page, please sign each of them, so we will be able to figure out who said what after people have interpolated additional comments between your bullets/paragraphs.

Contents

[edit] General conventions

  • Re Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), I did a sanity check to see what people are doing on interwiki sites, and it seems that converting everything to the language of the site is the prevailing convention elsewhere as well. For example, at various sites for the Battle of the Bulge I find:
    • de:Ardennenoffensive : die 101. amerikanische Luftlandedivision,
    • es:Batalla_de_las_Ardenas : los ejércitos 7º y 15º, el 5º panzer armeè,
    • fr:Bataille_des_Ardennes : le 21e Groupe d'armées, la 5e Pz Armée, La 7e Div Bl US, la 1re SS Pz Div
    • it:Offensiva_delle_Ardenne : la 5a armata Panzer, La 2a divisione Panzer, la 101a divisione aviotrasportata statunitense
    • nl:Ardennenoffensief : de 101 luchtlandingsdivisie
    • pl:Ofensywa_w_Ardenach : 9. i 3. armii amerykańskich, 6. Armia Pancerna SS, 99. i 106. dywizja piechoty, 101. Dywizja Spadochronowa, 12. Dywizję Pancerną SS "Hitlerjugend
    • sv:Ardenneroffensiven : Waffen-SS-divisionerna "Das Reich" och "Hitlerjugend"
    • wa:Ofinsive_da_Von_Rundstedt : Les 12inme et 277inme divizions Vk gr., Li 6inme tancreye di Panzer, Les 2inme, 99inme, 106inme et 28 inme divizions amerikinne, Les Inglès (30inme coir, 53inme divizion, Tancreye del Wåde, 43 inme divizion), l’ 2inme divizion d’ Panzers
  • This draft does not yet address conventions for translating vs. not-translating unit nicknames or proper names used as part of a unit's name
    My intuition tells me not to translate them except when first introduced. The Use English forms precept suggests that we should translate them, but let's look at some examples to see whether too much awkwardness arises. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • For units from non-English-speaking countries, give the native language form of the name in parentheses and italics immediately after the bolded name of the article:
    The German 3rd Mountain Division (3. Gebirgs-Divison) was...
    I see a bit of variety in the use of hyphens for German-language forms, so we will probably need a convention for that, too. — B.Bryant 00:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • For languages that do not use Latin-based alphabets, give a transliteration of the native-language form instead of (or in addition to) the "native" native-language form.
    See Use English forms for more on this. — B.Bryant 23:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • For articles that mention military units that are not the subject of the article:
    • Do not give the native-language form of units' names in article bodies.
      Notice that the first mention should be linked, and the native-language form will be available at the link. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Prefixing the names of units with their nationality does not allow you to distinguish between cases where the nationality is a proper part of the unit name and cases where it is merely a descriptive, disambiguating label. For example, the Australian Army Band Corps is officially called exactly that: however, the Australian Special Air Service Regiment is actually called the Special Air Service Regiment.
Good point. We wouldn't want an article named Australian Australian Army Band Corps! — B.Bryant 21:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Could we distinguish between similarly named units by appending their nationality/country in parentheses where necessary? E.g. the Australian Army Band Corps page would be titled just that, while the Australian Special Air Service Regiment page would be retitled Special Air Service Regiment (Australia); its British equivalent would be moved from the plain Special Air Service to Special Air Service (United Kingdom), allowing Special Air Service to be used as a disambiguation page and preventing accusations of Pommie arrogance from our Antipodean cousins. (Conversely, Special Air Service of New Zealand would be moved to New Zealand Special Air Service Group, its official title.)
Using this form in the introductory sentence would be a bit awkward, so there the nationality could be prefixed as per the existing draft convention, with the proviso that you only emphasise it if it forms part of the unit's official title (e.g. "The Australian Army Band Corps...", but "The Australian Special Air Service Regiment..."): however, as these sentences often continue "... is a unit in the [nationality] Army", this will often prove unnecessary. — Franey 09:57, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm open on parentheses rather than prefixes; I just put prefixes in the draft standard because I've been finding lots of articles and edit-links using that format. Also, if something is prefixed or appended to a unit name for the sole purpose of avoiding clashes with other country's units, I don't think we should make the whole a mandatory part of the introductory sentence. Hopefully people will pitch in with more awkward examples here, so we can try to derive a general convention that covers almost everything. — B.Bryant 21:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How about this one? There is a British unit with the official title of Joint Communications Unit (Falkland Islands) (JCUFI). Under the scheme I suggested, its page would apparently refer to a unit called the Joint Communications Unit in the (non-existent) military of the Falkland Islands, as distinct from any other country's Joint Communications Unit. — Franey 08:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the example given above of the JCUFI, a person familiar with the naming convention as proposed here would be justified in believing that the unit is an element of the military service of the FI. Of course, that person may be confused by the fact that there is no such thing as the military service of the FI. The issue is avoided, though, by applying the convention as proposed to the unit's name: Joint Communications Unit (Falkland Islands) (United Kingdom). A person familiar with the convention will see immediately that the unit is of the military service of the UK (based on an understanding that a national reference in parentheses at the end of the name means that). The interior parenthetical reference to the FI may prompt the curious person to click on the link, to have the situation clarified in the introductory sentence. This example is actually a strong argument in favor of the proposed convention. --Mddake 04:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a similar convention being proposed for ministries and departments of civil governments that uses the ending jurisdictional reference in parentheses method. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government departments and ministers) --Mddake 04:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Another example is the Estonian corps and divisions that the Soviet Union raised during WWII. I am finding them referenced as "8th Estonian Rifle Corps", "249th Estonian Rifle Division", etc., regarding which our draft convention would call for articles named Soviet 249th Estonian Rifle Division, etc. I actually think that would be correct, since they are Estonian by nationality rather than part of an Estonian national army, i.e. IMO Estonian 249th Rifle Division would be incorrect. — B.Bryant 16:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Another example is the Freikorps Danmark, a battalion-sized Waffen-SS unit recruited from Danes. Although it was strictly speaking a unit of the German military, it doesn't sound right if prefixed as German Freikorps Danmark. I suspect the reason this contrasts with Soviet 249th Estonian Rifle Division is that 'Soviet' doesn't imply nationality as strongly as 'German' does; e.g. Russian 249th Estonian Rifle Division would sound kind of funny too. However, since the unit is a nonesuch rather than part of a series, we may not need to prefix it at all.

[edit] Units that were redesignated, upgraded, reorganized, or reconstituted

  • Additional material for this section is TBA
    A very important decision is whether we should be lumpers or splitters — do we cover the unit's entire history in a single article, or provide a separate article for each "version" of a unit. I've been using several "splitter" sites as references for the WWII/German stubs I've been creating (http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=31, http://www.feldgrau.com/, http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/inhaltsverzeichnis1.htm), and I find it very annoying — especially when you have to read three one-sentence articles to get an overview of a unit's history, or when parts are missing or not linked. However, when I tried going the "lumper" route on the aforementioned stubs, a whole different batch of headaches show up. (Not least, the question of what qualifies as "the same unit" in some cases.) At any rate, let's try to get a concensus on when to lump and when to split, and then we'll need to propose some conventions for implementation (e.g., maybe a format for an "alias list" at the top of lumped articles, or for a group of "alias links" for split articles). — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • A suggestion (from a "wingnut" (USAF) point of view): The AF Historical Research Agency keeps pretty good tabs on the history of units as they progress through time (and change designations left and right). I'm sure the other branches must have some agency or historical information warehouse like this. Why not just follow the "official story", "lumping" when official information is available; and in the absence of official information, "splitting"? NDCompuGeek 12:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Units and headquarters

[edit] Army groups

Can we collapse this section? Will there be any differences at the different levels, other than the form of numerals used? — B.Bryant 23:57, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think a note should be made that Soviet army groups/armies are referred to as Fronts. Oberiko 01:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes, good point. I think the various sections (however we end up organizing the page) will need to have sub-sections called "national peculiarities" for stuff that doesn't fit with more general international usage. As for the Soviets, as I understand it an "army" was bigger than a western corps but smaller than a western army, a "front" was between western army and army group, and a "strategic direction" controlled several fronts. — B.Bryant 21:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Armies

  • If named, put the name at the end:
    ...to Army Karpaty...
    I'm pretty sure I'm going to think of a good counterexample as soon as I take a break from this.... Maybe if we throw in a bunch of examples we can induce a rule from them. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, we can probably discuss named corps, divisions, etc. here as well, since the same sort of issues are involved. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Corps

  • If named, – TBA
    See discussion for armies, above. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exceptions

  • Soviet World War II era tank and mechanized corps are numbered with ordinalized Arabic numerals rather than Roman numerals:
    ...then the Soviet 2nd Guards Mechanized Corps advanced...
    I believe this is standard English usage, based on the fact that these formations were divisions in all but name. I'm not sure the same applies to their cavalry corps, and infantry divisions were usually controlled by army HQs without any intervening corps. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Is the notion that WWII Soviet Corps = western division accurate? I know that it's portrayed that way almost universally in wargames, but my source for the OB for the Battle of Velikiye Luki shows the 2nd Mechanized Corps controlling not only the three expected mechanized brigades, but two rather than thex expected one tank brigade, plus a rifle division, two rifle brigades, and a ski brigade. Were these just attachments, or was the Soviet corps not the kind of organic unit that it is commonly portrayed to be? — B.Bryant 15:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    No, the notion is correct only if you just look at the number of men in the units. Most Soviet divisions were only (western) brigade strength and corps had (western) divisional strenght, but the Soviet army, late war, still used the order army > corps > division for ordinary infantry units, but the order army > corps > brigade for mechanized units, where divisions and brigades were the highest organic units. --Elisson 20:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • From what I've seen, Soviet and Eastern bloc Corps are never referred to with Roman numerals. --RaiderAspect 13:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"Deutsches Afrika Korps" is not well known it is usually known as the just the "Afrika Korps" and if a country designation is given it is "German Afrika Korps" the most English speakers will assume that Deutsches means something to do with Holland. Philip Baird Shearer 10:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Divisions and brigades

  • If named, – TBA
    See discussion for armies, above. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is my understanding (and I can't provide a link for proof, but almost any veteran could corroborate) that in the U.S. Military, numbered divisions always include the word division—thus 82nd Airborne Division, 1st Infantry division, 4th Armored Division.

To refer to the 1st Marines, however, means the 1st Marine Regiment. Regiments, when identified (and the 1st Marines were identified a lot in the Pacific in WWII) are known by the number of the unit and the organization or specialty: 1st Armored, 5th Marines, 7th Cavalry, etc. are all regiments and not to be confused with the 1st Marine Division (also used a lot in WWII), or 1st Air Cavalry Division.

The Army Air Corps did not follow this, e.g. 8th Air Force, which as a corps sized organization neither used the Roman numerals nor followed the above convention.

It is my experience that the USAF uses the spelled-out number ("Eighth Air Force" as opposed to "8th Air Force") when referring to these major units. Not sure if any other countries follow this format though.... NDCompuGeek 05:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The Navy likewise does not have such a convention, its organization being entirely different (ships, squadrons, task forces, fleets). Duckecho 12:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

There are more armed forces than just the Americans. Philip Baird Shearer 10:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, yes, there are more forces than just the US Forces, but persons working on those units need to add their own 2 Cents here, and in the article. As it is, there need to be major divisions to this article for each nation in question.
Second of all, "Type" Divisions did not exist before 1922 when the first Cavalry Divisions were created as permanent units. After that, there were only Divisions and Cavalry Divisions until the 2nd Division was designated the 2nd Infantry Division when it tested the Triangular TO&E format. The remainder of the current batch of designated type Divisions all date from 1940 when the Armored Divisions started to be created. The Airborne Divisions were all redesignated from Divisions, and would have been Infantry Divisions if the airborne concept did not change circumstances. This is also true of the 10th Mountain Division, which was redesignated from the 10th Division; and the 4th Motorized Division, which ws redesignated from the 4th Division, and redesignated again to the 4th Infantry Division. The 11th Air Assault Division was redesignated from the 11th Airborne Division, which was redesignated from the 11th Division. And so on ad infinitum. SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 00:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regiments

TBA

See my discussion above under "Divisions and Brigades." Duckecho 12:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Over time the British army has designated regiment by colonel name, number and name. Other armies have also used different systems, so I do not think that it is easy to set global rules on this. For example of what I mean have a look at the current names for British regiments. Currently the British Army seem to use every combination apart from the "colonel name". -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battalions / squadrons

TBA

The standard US Army usage is that Batallions and Squadrons are given numbers within their Regiments. Example: "1st Batallion, 384th Infantry Regiment". This is sometimes written in literature as "the 1st of the 384th", and frequently abbreviated (particularly for US Marine Units) as 1/384. So "the First of the Third" or "1/3" means "First batallion, #rd Marine Regiment.

For separate batallions and other units that are not part of a higher-level unit, they are given numbers, usually 3 digits, similar in style to Companies.

147.240.236.9 22:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the official usage in the US Army is only to designate battalions/squadrons with a slash when they part of a tactical regiment (e.g, 1/3rd Armored Cavalry). When the battalion or squadron is an element of an parent (i.e., administrative) regiment, use a hyphen (1-87th Infantry, 1-5th Field Artillery, and so on). It is a rule that is often not followed, but it is the official usage.Cyane 06:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Cyane

[edit] Companies / troops / batteries

TBA

The standard US Army usage is to use letters, and have the letters before the word 'Company' or 'Troop'; sometimes the letters are after 'Battery'. This is done when the company, troop, or battery is part of a larger administrative unit. Sometimes just letters are used, sometimes they are spelled out phonetically. Examples:

"A Company, 1st Batallion, 515th Airborne Regiment";

"Alpha Company, 2nd Batallion"

"F Troop, 2nd Squadron" or just plain "F Troop"

"Battery D, 2nd Batallion" or just plain "Battery D"

When the company is a separate company, a numerical designation is used, usually with 4 numbers. Examples: "1776th Military Police Company" or "8063rd MASH" (and yes, the MASH units were company-sized units).

147.240.236.9 22:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Which is the appropriate usage? Phoenetic or just letters?... NDCompuGeek 05:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Both. It's mostly a matter of preference, but in "official" correspondence, letter designations alone are usually used (e.g., "A Troop, 2d Squadron, 9th Cavalry"); when spoken aloud, the phonetic pronunciation is most common (e.g., "Alpha Troop, ..."). To complicate matters further, many organizations (especially U.S. Army, and particularly Cavalry units) prefer to use the unit's unique "nickname" in both written and spoken communication (e.g., "Apache Troop ..."). Hope that helps. :-) Mike f 21:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
If you're asking specifically which usage would be most appropriate for WP articles, I'd recommend:
  • For lists, tables, and the like: Letter designation only. ("A Troop")
  • For prose paragraphs, the more common of phonetic ("Alpha Troop") or nickname (e.g., "Easy Company").
Mike f 21:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Platoons

TBA The standard US Army usage is 1st, 2nd, 3rd, Headquarters, etc. Examples: "1st Platoon, A Company"; or "Headquarters Platoon, 4th Infantry Regiment".

[edit] Sections

Standard U.S. Army usage is a letter or phonetic designation ("A Section, 1st Platoon" or "Bravo Section, 4th Platoon), or a descriptive term ("Mortar Section, B Troop").Mike f 18:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Squads

TBA

The standard US Army usage is: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. As in "1st Squad, 2nd Platoon, Alpha Company". 147.240.236.9 22:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Type designations

The length of my throw-down list for WWII Germany suggests that we will have to move these to separate pages once we cover more than a couple of nations/eras. — B.Bryant 23:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Germany

  • Flieger → TBA
    I've always seen 7th Flieger as "7th Flieger", but I don't know whether its common enough to escape the Use English forms precept. "7th Air Division" sounds OK to me, in a pinch. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I'd prefer not using 7th Air Division as that leads my thoughts to air force units. For instance, the Soviet Union used a designation for their air force units that is usually translated to air division in English. --Elisson 19:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Heh, the Germans used air divisions too; 7th Flieger's name was a ruse to hide the fact that it was an airborne unit. (Though it may actually be more complicated than that; I read something that left the impression that it was an air division in the ordinary sense, mostly controlling air transport units, and with the paratroopers subordinated to it as well.) Either way, it may affect our choice of name for it. — B.Bryant 21:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Fallschirmjäger → TBA
    I would prefer not to translate, but again I don't know whether its common enough to escape the Use English forms precept. I can live with "Parachute". — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Parachute --Philip Baird Shearer 11:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • FLAK, Flak → TBA
    Pretty much borrowed into English, but should we use Flak or FLAK? — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I don't know if native english-speakers use FLAK or Flak, but in German, Flak (with capital K if referring to the anti-aircraft gun designation, lower case k if using in any other meaning) is the correct way to capitalize it. --Elisson 19:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    My Websters encyclopedia simply lists it as "flak", so presumably they consider it borrowed into English, in which case we could use "Flak" when it is part of a unit's name. — B.Bryant 21:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Füsilier → TBA
  • Grenadier → TBA
    Füsilier, Grenadier, Schützen... any serious distinction between these? Should we translate all as "infantry", or maybe use "rifle" for some? — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Schützen should be translated to Rifle. Why not use Grenadier for Grenadier and Fusilier for Füsilier? That's pretty common names for British regiments IIRC. --Elisson 19:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Good points; we USAians forget that those are English words as well. — B.Bryant 21:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Just to further obfuscate things, a British Rifle regiment is historically a light infantry unit, distinct from other line infantry, --Yendor1958 11:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Jäger → TBA
    Translate or not, when used in isolation? (Compound forms are addressed elsewhere in the list.) — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I think the Germans overuse the word: "ani"-tank, "Fighter" for aircraft. "Hunter Killer" for subs , but "Destroyer", "Minesweeper" or what ever for ships. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    You forgot Light Infantry --Yendor1958 11:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Kosaken → Cossack
    Are all these actual Cossack-based units, or does the term sometimes just mean "Cossack-style cavalry" (in which case we should probably translate it as "Cossack Cavalry" instead of just "Cossack"). — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    I'd use Cossack when the Germans used Kosaken-, and Cossack Cavalry when they used Kosaken-Kavallerie-. --Elisson 19:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Motorisierte, (mot.) → motorized
    • Use "motorized infantry" rather than the parenthetical "(motorized)":
      ...then 20th Motorized Infantry Division crossed...
      That's just my opinion, but it sure seems to make for smoother flowing prose. (No need to constrain ourselves to excessively literal translations.) — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      Agree. Might even use just Motorized Division as an even shorter alternative form. --Elisson 19:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Nummer, Nr. → TBA
    I usually see this as "Division Nummer" or "Division Nr.", but most people will never have seen it at all. Should we use "Division No." or "Division #" ? I suppose we could use "157th Division" for Division Nr. 157, but that seems to obscure the semantics. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Ost → TBA
    Is this part of the unit type, or just a flag indicating that the unit contains "Eastern" troops? — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Flag. There were a lot of different Ost units, having the designation merely meant they were Eastern troops. --Elisson 19:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Panzergrenadier → TBA
    I'd prefer not to translate, , but again I don't know whether its common enough to escape the Use English forms precept. If we do translate, I'd go for something like "mechanized infantry" rather than the cringe-inducing "tank grenadier" that you sometimes see. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Agree on no translation.
  • Reiter → TBA
    "Horse"? "Mounted"? Was this term ever used for motorized cavalry? — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    AFAIK, it wasn't used for motorized cavalry. --Elisson 19:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    What was it used for? The 16th- and 17th-century sword-and-pistol cavalry? In that case, the term seems to be widespread and familiar enough in military history circles that Idon't feel the need to translate it Lay 11:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    Reiter (both singular and plural) was a term used for individual cavalrymen, like kanonier(e) for artillerymen and schütze(n) for riflemen. It was not in widespread use as a term for categorizing formations, with a few exceptions when it comes to early SS-units. In any case, I do agree that it probably won't need translation if the term shows up. -- Elisson • Talk 11:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Schatten → TBA
    "Shadow" or "Ghost" ? — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    Shadow souns best. --Elisson 19:56, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Schützen → TBA
    See Füsiler above.
  • Volks → see following, but never translate as "People's".
    I cringe at "People's" because of the association with Communists institutions, which (as I understand it) invoke it as a propagandistic claim of being "of, by, and for the people" rather than the WWII German usage of (as I understand it) "of the Volk", an appeal (as I understand it) to nationalism rather than to a pretense of democratic institutions. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Volksgebirgs → TBA
      This should probably be translated in accord with the Use English forms precept, but I can't think of a translation that doesn't make me cringe. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Volks-Sturm → do not translate, and take care not to spell it as Volkssturm
      I think the 78th Division was the only unit to bear this; it appears to be a variant of Volksgrenadier, with the 78th's Sturm grafted in. As I understand it, it did not signify any relation to the Volkssturm. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • z.b.V. → TBA
    The Use English forms precept suggests translating it as "special purpose", but "Special Purpose Afrika Division" sounds funny... to me. — B.Bryant 23:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have run order of battle table from the German article de:Heeresgruppe B and added it to Army Group B. I used Altavista and have then done some hand translation. Most of it is automatic but there were a couple of points I would like to raise:

  • "Nachrichten-Regiment 537" I translated as "537th Signals Regiment" although Altavista translated "Nachrichten" to "Message", does anyone have a better tranlation?
    • "Signals Regiment". No doubt.
  • I translated "Panzer-Gruppe Kleist" to "Panzer Group Kliest". The Paul Ludwig Ewald von Kleist article keeps it as "Panzergruppe von Kleist" what is the best thing to do?
    • Keep it as either Panzer-Gruppe or Panzergruppe, IMO.
  • September 1943: "LI. AK, II. SS, LXXXVII. AK" -- What is AK and what is SS in this context?
    • AK is "Armee-Korps". "II. SS" is the "II. SS-Panzer-Korps".
  • December 1943: "z. Vfg. OKW in Denmark" what is "z. Vfg." ?
    • "zu Verfügung", meaning "at disposal (of)". The unit was an OKW reserve in Denmark.
  • There are several other iffy translations in the translated table which need looking at, but I think they are best fixed on the Army Group B page, or discussed on the Talk page of Army Group B, rather than here.
    • Hope that helps a little. – Elisson • Talk 15:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

--Philip Baird Shearer 11:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Union

Early Soviet Union had "bronetankovye voiska". I would suggest the translation "armored and tank" in the case if this term was used in the actual names of mil formations (I am not sure about the latter, but I see this term is often used in Russian texts as a translation for "armoured" and German "Panzer"). Mikkalai 19:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UK

[edit] USA

[edit] Naming conventions - Germany

Bob,

I realise what you are attempting to do, however in my experience, ALL scholarly work to do with the German army refers to certain formations by their German titles.

The question is, what should an English-language encyclopedia do? We need to maintain reasonable "scholarly" standards, but we're not writing for historians and military buffs. For instance, Matthew Cooper's The German Army 1933-1945 has 16 pages of endnote citations and six pages of "select" bibliography, but skimming him I find "Africa Corps", "90th Light", "Panzergrenadier Regiment Africa", "164th Light Division", "Panzer Army Africa", "5th Panzer Army", "21st Panzer Division", etc. In my experience that's pretty typical of 'reputable' English-language writing about WWII. — B.Bryant 21:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The main exceptions I have found are: Flieger, Panzer, Panzergrenadier, Fallschirmjäger, Gebirgsjäger, Jäger, FlaK, schwere, Ost, Lehr and Pioniere (If translated, Pioniere should become Pioneer, not Engineers). Also anyting with the prefix Sturm should really remain that way. (e.g. Sturm-Artillery, Sturmpionier etc.). As for the unit terms Abteilung and Kampfgruppe, these have no exact english translation, so should be left as it with an explanation page.

Also, a differentiation needs to be made between Infanterie and Grenadier formations, as to ignore this removes the significance of the 1943 changeover.

Could you direct me to more information about this? Was it something more than just another new Art/Typ to stretch resources, such as the one in 1944? — B.Bryant 21:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this englishification is getting a bit extreme. As wikipedia is a reference encyclopedia, people are far more likely to look for Panzergrenadier Division Grossdeutschland than for German Mechanised Infantry Division Greater Germany.

I agree, but IMO there's absolutely no reason to use Infanterie in English articles. What's in question is where we draw the line. — B.Bryant 21:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look at the conventions used with the Panzers themselves. They are still referred to as Panzerkampfwagen, not as armoured fighting vehicle. --Ansbachdragoner 01:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I usually see them referred to as "Panzer IV" or "Pxyz IV" (where 'Pxyz' is one of about five different common abbreviations for Panzerkampfwagen). However, that doesn't tell us much about proper English usage for unit names. We already know that "panzer" and "flak" have been borrowed into English, but certainly Gebirgsjäger hasn't. BTW, FWIW, I was originally going to have the conventions page cover hardware and ranks as well as units, but I decided that it's likely to be big enough as it is. — B.Bryant 21:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] British Commonwealth during WWII

How should we name articles for units commonly known as e.g. "1st South African Division"? I don't think I've ever seen "South African 1st Division". Should these be an exception to the convention of prefixing the nationality to unit names, or not? — B.Bryant 03:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Australian divisions are commonly referred to simply as the "8th Division" or the "1st Armoured Division" (etc), even though the official name was 8th Australian Infantry Division and 1st Australian Armoured Division. I have a feeling it might be confusing if the official name was used. I can't speak for other Commonwealth countries though. Grant65 (Talk) 16:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I would suggest putting them under Australian 8th Infantry Division as a page name but in the article refer to is as the 8th Division and put in a redirect for Australian 8th Division for use on battle pages. If after that on the battle page there is only one 8th Division mentioned then it is implied that it is the Australian one. There is not yet a standard across the Commonwealth but I think we should work towards one.
If Australia also uses what seems to be the de facto Wikipedia format, it makes it much easier to guess what the Wikipedia article name is for Australian divisions when trying to link to them. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poland

Hello everyone. I've been working on military history of Poland for quite some time and never realized that there is a discussion going on here. Recently someone at Talk:3d Infantry Regiment pointed me here and I thought it would be nice to include Poland in the list. The scheme used by the Polish Army is fairly simple and easy to handle in English, but it certainly needs some explanation. For consistency, I've been using the following names so far:

  • Divisions, Brigades and Regiments - as per normal wiki convention: [Country] [Number] [Type] [Unit].
  • Do not add the traditional or honorary names in the title, mentioning them in the lead is enough. Thus 36. pułk piechoty Legii Akademickiej should be described in Polish 36th Infantry Regiment, and not Polish 36th Infantry Regiment of the Academic Legion. Same with Polish 1st Legions Infantry Division (and not Polish 1st Legions Infantry Division of Marshal of Poland Józef Piłsudski), Pierwszy Pułk Strzelców Konnych Jazdy Augustowskiej at Polish 1st Mounted Rifles Regiment and not [[Polish 1st Augustów Cavalry Mounted Rifles Regiment]] and so on.
  • Specific types:
    • piechota - infantry
    • pancerny - armoured
    • strzelcy - rifles
    • strzelcy konni - mounted rifles
    • kawaleria - cavalry
    • jazda - cavalry
    • ułani - uhlans

Any other ideas? Halibutt 20:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian naming conventions

The Canadian formations used a unique naming format, and I notice several editors have gotten this wrong. I'm trying to correct them as I go, namely

  • First Canadian Army is correct, not Canadian First Army. The British and US seem to have used the "Foo First Army" format but Canada did it "First Fooish Army".
  • Likewise divisions; the official history and period documents all use "1st Canadian Infantry Division" rather than "Canadian 1st Infantry Division" despite what the British or Americans did.Michael Dorosh 20:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


The British, US, and many others do not generally call their armies "Foo First Army", they tend to call it "First Army", the reason for putting in the units under "Foo First Army" is a convention (this one) used in Wikipedia for disambiguation. If they all use the same format then when referring to an army one is not familiar with one can make a good guess as to the army name, e.g. Romanian First Army. "Why not use a redirect?" I hear you saying, the major problem is categories (as it always is). Using "Canadian First Army" places it under C for Canada not F for First. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Change it with a wiki pipe - [[Category:Fake Category|Canadian 1st Army]] - I don't see a problem. (edit - Kirill beat me to it, below)Michael Dorosh 19:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The category sort key can be set manually, though, so that's hardly a convincing reason. Kirill Lokshin 11:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Army "2d" & "3d" or "2nd" & "3rd"?

Some contributors are insisting on "-d" instead of "-nd" or "-rd", e.g. 93d Infantry Division instead of "93rd". This is clearly against present day usage and I am not convinced that "d" was ever a standard/normal abbreviation for "second" and "third" in the U.S. Army. I also haven't seen it in any other national variety of English. Any thoughts? Grant65 | Talk 10:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure "d" was not the standard period designation? What original documents have you investigated? I thought the "d" was standard US Army practice.Michael Dorosh 18:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The Institute of Heraldry [2] is probably the best official source for unit names. They only show current units, so the 93rd is not listed. They do show the 92nd Infantry Division as "92D INFANTRY DIVISION" [3]. So, yes the US Army does use the d alone instead of nd.

However, The Army Times and Soldiers magazines use the [AP Stylebook|Associated Press Stylebook]. The AP style would be "92nd Infantry Division".

The question here is what standard do we use- TIOH or AP?

The U.S. Army is inconsistent in this regard. The 82nd Airborne Division uses the 'nd'[4]. Also using 'D' could be confusing to people unfamiliar with the subject matter -- several nations have units with a letter as part of their numerical designation (i.e. NVA 324B Division.) Besides, 'rd' and 'nd' are the proper ordinals in English. JE1977 02:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, U.S. is not part of the official unit designation. When there is a need to disabiguate an article, you add a descriptor in parentheses. Thus, if there was a possibility of confusing the "93d Infantry Division" with some other unit, it would probably be best to title it as "U.S. 93d Infantry Division (United States Army)". There is no need to do this for every unit, only where the names are the same. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That recommended unit title ("U.S. 93d Infantry Division (United States Army)") almost sounds like it's from the department of redundancy department.... What about just titling the unit what it's official title is: "93d Infantry Division"), and if it needs a 'disambiguator', just add the suffix at the end without adding the US prefix: "93d Infantry Division (United States)" or "93d Infantry Division (United States Army)"....
Just a humble suggestion.... NDCompuGeek 22:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Unit Name (disambiguator) is also the style preferred by the WP Military History task force. See WP:MILHIST#Military_units_and_formations for details. Mike f 22:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Yup. It looks like this particular page is going to be marked as historical, due to the implementation of the new convention; see here. Kirill Lokshin 22:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)