Talk:61 Mechanised Battalion Group
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Community Tech bot in topic A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 61 Mechanised Battalion Group article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wrong name Comment
edit- The name of this page is is a problem. To my knowledge, it was never 61 Mechanised Infantry Battalion Group. 61 Mechanised Battalion Group & 61 Mechanised Battalion yes. Do we need to blank and redirect? If so, to which name? BoonDock (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)ř
- According to Major General Roland de Vries in his book Eye of the Storm, as a former commander of the unit in 1981 & 82, refers to them as 61 Mech or 61 Mechanised Battalion Group. Has it origins in Operation Savannah as Battle Group Juliet. The veterans group refers to themselves as 61 Mechanised Battalion Group Veterans Association. I think it should remain as named.Conlinp (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- You make my point for me. Nowhere in there does it say Infantry! So I say again, should we recreate the page as 61 Mechanised Battalion Group? BoonDock (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hahaha. Sorry mate missed the Infantry in heading so my answer would be go with the change - 61 Mechanised Battalion Group. Conlinp (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support moving to 61 Mechanised Battalion Group all the reliable sources I have checked (on my bookshelf) agree. If you're not familiar with the technicalities of moving a page, I'll do it when a sufficient consensus has been reached. (Please do not do a copy/paste move, it breaks the history and attribution of a page.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Roger (Dodger67)! I would appreciate you doing it. Will it break my NavBox template SA Army Units? BoonDock (talk) 10:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- @BoonDock - Links in navboxes, other articles, etc., are easy to update using the "what links here" tool. So we'll let this proposal stand for a few days - see what other comments are added, and then act accordingly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Roger (Dodger67) Not serious. I'll just update the template. Thanks! BoonDock (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- @BoonDock - Links in navboxes, other articles, etc., are easy to update using the "what links here" tool. So we'll let this proposal stand for a few days - see what other comments are added, and then act accordingly. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- There have been NO comments, at least no objections. @Roger (Dodger67) do you think you could make the move? BoonDock (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Done - I have also updated the Army units template, that should take care of the majority of the redirect links. We need to wait a bit (12 to 24 hours) for the change to propagate throughout the whole database, then we can easily track down remaining links that need to be fixed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. That's perfect! BoonDock (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)