Talk:90th Guards Tank Division (2016–present)

Numerical designation (90th) or honorific name ?

Much like British Commonwealth infantry regiment battle honors, the honorific names given to Soviet and now Russian divisions are very important for their history. The difference is that the honorifics are embedded into the formal names (designations) of the formations in question. Thus the 90th Guards Tank Division (Lvovskaya order of Lenin Red Banner order of Suvorov), of 1985-1997 [1] is not the same as the 90th Guards Tank Division (Russia) (90th Guards Vitebsko-Novgorodskaya twice Red Banner Tank Division) formed in 2016 [2]. Nickel nitride was no doubt trying to keep the histories separate when he created the new 90th Guards Tank Division (Russia) article in the last few weeks.

In 1985 the Soviet high command wanted to rebalance numbers of tank and motor rifle divisions in the DDR and Poland, and thus swapped the lineages for two divisions, creating the conundrum we have today (see the linked divisional histories at Michael Holm's site for the story, or we can direct you to Feskov et al 2013 or another source). Our problem is that *both* divisions are the 90th Guards Tank Division (Russia); one from 1992-1997, and the other from 2016-7 onwards. This could potentially cause great confusion, and for that reason I'd like to seek opinions from our Soviet/Russian experts and a couple of old heads; W. B. Wilson, Ryan.opel, Wreck Smurfy, Kges1901, plus Hawkeye7 and Nick-D. Wikipedia usually creates article titles based on the numerical designation (90th) and Guards designators, plus type (tank) and size (division). Here we've got two articles about arguably two separate formations - or are they? Should we (a) merge both based on the Soviet First Formation, Second Formation, Third Formation rule etc? (b) we rename the article(s)? (c) we leave things as they are? What do people think? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Based on the above, I'd suggest renaming. If the units don't have the same lineage, or if the lineage is totally artificial, we should make this clear to our readers to help them understand the histories of the units. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps disambiguate them by year rather than country? ie 90th Guards Tank Division (1992–1997) and 90th Guards Tank Division (2016–current). Not our usual arrangement re: disambiguation by country, but might be necessary to cover a pretty unique situation. It would work unless there are going to be other 90th Guards Tank Divisions (unlikely). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

If we merge both we eventually will have an article that is too long as these are units with storied histories that much information can be had about. Leaving things as they are is also unsatisfactory. I agree with Peacemaker that we should disambiguate by year - after all, we already do this for some French units. Kges1901 (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

While I have no expertise at all on Russian Federation formations, I would echo Kges1901's solution as appearing the most practical. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I like Peacemaker67's suggestion. These are two separate unit linages and honors, the only thing they share is a name. I also think we should have a break point for xx Division (Soviet Union) to xx Division (New Country) and then link back to there historic Soviet Designations. Date should be the Fall of the Soviet Union or 1 Jan 1992 to make the dates easier. Ryan.opel (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: Implementing suggestion by moving article to 90th Guards Tank Division (2016–present). Kges1901 (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Kges1901. You must also move the other article; suggest it should be to 90th Guards Lvov Tank Division (1985-1997). Buckshot06 (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)