Talk:59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured article59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 20, 2023.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 22, 2019WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
August 3, 2019Good article nomineeListed
November 30, 2019Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Comment[edit]

I have checked the sources for the information i've added and for what was already here. It seems to be correct. I've also cleaned it up a bit and added these tags. Tristan benedict 19:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1/6th Battalion, South Staffordshire Regiment[edit]

"1/6th Battalion, South Staffordshire Regiment (detached January 1940, rejoined June 1940)"

Do we have a source to support that the battalion was detached in January 1940? Joslen indicates that the battalion remained part of the 177th Brigade for its entire existence. With that said, we know the battalion was deployed to France in a pioneer role; do we have any sources on that that can shed some light on this peculiarity?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames[edit]

I removed the following nicknames from the article text as I have been unable to verify the information:

  • Pithead Division: Only found three mentions of it: two were in works by Patrick Delaforce, popular history books that do not contain any inline citations or decent referencing; and another that called the division the "59th (Midlands) Division". Neither seem very reliable on the subject. Does anyone have a better source for this?
  • Fiftyninth: Zero Googlebook hits for anything remotely to do with the division. Likewise, does anyone have a source for this?

Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tidied section, rv as desired.Keith-264 (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pomegranate casualties[edit]

The following information is from Morss' site on the 59th, which is not a RS per wiki policy. Some OR indicates that the figures are roughly accurate, however I have been unable to find any secondary sources that support it. Moved here for safe keeping:

" The operation cost the 59th Division 1,250 casualties but almost 600 prisoners of war (POWs) were taken."

Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit[edit]

Hi EnigmaMcmxc and other editors. I will be copy editing this for GOCE in fits and starts over the next couple of weeks. If you have any queries over anything I do, please don't hesitate to flag them up here. Likewise, if I have any issues I will report back here. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "increased the number of divisions in the Territorial Army (TA) by duplicating existing units" This reads as if existing TA units were duplicated. Is this the case, or were regular units also (or exclusively) duplicated? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is the term used by the sources to describe the process, and was exclusive to the TA (which was supposed to be the only way of raising new units. To the best of my knowledge, while new regular formations were created it was not through the "duplication" process). They would create new units based off a cadre of their men, once sufficient numbers had been raised they would be allocated to the new division. Hope this helps :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's fine. I'll leave it as it is then. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the outbreak of the war, the 55th (West Lancashire) Motor Division had formed the 164th Brigade ... " I have tried to clarify this. I would be grateful if you could check if I am factually correct and if you feel that it is any clearer.
    Yes, it is factually correct and much clear than I had wrote it. Thank you :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "militiamen" seems an odd word to use considering that the militia had been disbanded in 1907. Is there a reason? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the term used to refer to the conscripts called up before the war started. All sources that I have read that describe this call-up, use the same term but provide no explanation for its use. For example:
    "All 20-year-olds were called up for six months...as 'Militiamen' prior to joining new second line ...", or "The first priority was to complete the training of the Militiamen and the ..."EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How strange. I must surely have come across it myself without it going "click". Well, if the sources commonly use it, then it is ipso facto acceptable. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "177th Brigade opened up the new phase of fighting, and suffered casualties in an unsuccessful attempt to push south along the west bank of the Orne." Do we have a date for this? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm done. A good quality article you have there. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:59th_(Staffordshire)_Infantry_Division&oldid=1197068232"