Talk:66th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 66th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

66th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 18, 2019	Guild of Copy Editors	Copyedited
October 22, 2019	Good article nominee	Listed
December 5, 2019	WikiProject A-class review	Approved

Current status: Good article

Military history: British / European / World War II

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War II task force

Additional information:
/
	This article has passed an A-Class review.

move

This article should be moved back to 66th Infantry Division (United Kingdom). The name East Lancashire is undocumented.--Caranorn (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how about this showing a Lancs connection at 1014-1918.net? GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many differences in the designations of WWI and WWII divisions.--Caranorn (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about World War I ?

What about the the 66th Division in World War I ? The correct name in WWI was 66th (2nd East Lancashire) Division. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no historic connection between those two divisions as far as I can tell. A number of other units also had different designations in WWI and WWII and accordingly have (or had, I haven't checked lately) separate articles. If you wish I will take a closer look at the issue in general.--Caranorn (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we need 2 separate articles then, this is the case with some other divisions too. I don't know much about the 66th Division in WWI, so I am not the person to write the article. My inquiry here originates from a link I made from the 42nd Division, which now points to a WWII division which is obviously not right. Perhaps either you or I could create a stub as a placeholder, named 66th (2nd East Lancashire) Division ? Rcbutcher (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to look up the information on the internet (I think I wrote a couple of WWI division stubs that way once) as I have no reliable source for that conflict. But yes, a separate article would be the best approach, if there was a continuous history just adding a section to this article and modifying the intro would do but that does not seem to be the case. I just did a quick search, there seems to be a lot of info here 1914-1918, of course do not copy directly. I'd also just do a start (August/September 1914) order of battle. If you don't feel confident in doing this let me know, I'm quite busy right now but I could probably fit a stub into my timeplan.--Caranorn (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've created a stub entry for 66th (2nd East Lancashire) Division. I don't want to just copy any stuff from Chris Baker's site, so I hope somebody will adopt the page and do their own research to provide a decent article. Rcbutcher (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously didn't mean to copy material directly, rather use the site as source. I will add a quick order of battle from that material but I won't have time to do anymore than that right now.--Caranorn (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now merged the two articles, as they have a fairly consistent history. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have move to split the articles. Both divisions have different origins, and both articles will hopefully be GA-Class shortly to give an accurate history for both separate (but similarly numbered) units.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from copyedit

Hi there EnigmaMcmxc, comments from the copyedit will go here.

The term 'embryo' at the start of the history section does accurately describe the division just starting, but I would advise not using it here as it feels a little out of place. I would change it myself, but I don't have the source material so I cannot make the judgement as to what stage of development the division was at that time. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234:: I removed the redirect on this talkpage, and have moved your comment to here.

With that said, in regards to embryo this is what the sources say: divisional HQ was organized prior to the outbreak of the war, and did not have any assets assigned to it until 27 September 1939. Any suggestions on better wording is welcome.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: remainder or remnants: historical context, the First Czech Republic was 54,400 square miles with a population of about 15 million people. The Munich agreement took 2,300 square miles, which included the country's border fortifications, and about 4 million people. This left the Second Czech Republic military indefensible, fractured along ethic lines, with 38,358 square miles of territory and about 10.4 million people. Whatever word you think is more suited to the situation.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EnigmaMcmxc: something like 'On 17 July 1939, the division was raised but had no troops assigned to it yet'. Sounds fine? In regards to the remnants or remainder, I think remainder is more appropriate after looking at the source. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a who? tag at the start of the second paragraph in the history section. Please address. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'against an establishment of seventy-two modern 25-pounder field guns' who did these 25-pounders belong to? Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit all Done, best of luck with GAN. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234:: Thank you for your work on this. I have made a couple of tweaks per your comments above, the later being a move from a technical term to avoid misunderstanding.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~@EnigmaMcmxc: it still doesn't tell me who the 25 pounders belonged to? Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sorry, I think I may have misunderstood, do you mind telling me what the source says? Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234:: So Joslen states what a division should have. Newbold highlights what the division actually had. In this case, the division was supposed to have 25 pounders issued to them by the Army, but they weren't (more than likely because production had not kept up with demand and the ones being produced were given to first line units). So in short, they didn't belong to anyone, they didn't exist.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]