Contents

Talk:7th Signals Group (British Army)

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: National / British / European / Post-Cold War 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 This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  National militaries task force British military history task force European military history task force Post-Cold War task force England Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was created or improved during the "The 20,000 Challenge: UK and Ireland", which started on 20 August 2016 and is still open. You can help!

Hi there @Noclador could you tell me why you changed the name of this page? I already had this discussion including @Dormskirk. The United Kingdom is the only country using the term 'Signal Group(s)', and therefore no need for a disambiguation. On-top of that, "British Army" shouldn't be used if one was used, only "United Kingdom". Coldstreamer20 (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the British Army's Future Soldier brochure, the group is always named as: "7 Signals Group". As with the brochure new names for a lot of units are introduced (i.e. all the regiments/battalions/hospitals of RLC, REME, RMC) I believe that from now on the name will be: 7 Signals Group and as already other units have been moved to their new names (i.e. 16 Air Assault Brigade Combat Team, 20th Armoured Brigade Combat Team (United Kingdom)) I assumed it would be ok to start moving the remaining units to their news names too. As for the reason I went with "British Army" and not "United Kingdom" - there have been RAF Signals Groups before (i.e. No. 90 Signals Group in the 1960s) and therefore British Army seemed more correct to distinguish it. However if you feel that the move was premature please revert it. noclador (talk) 10:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for the reply, I wasn't alerted for some reason, but there you are. No. 1 yes "7 Signals Group" is correct, but on the Military History discussion we've decided to keep the regular (in this case) "7th Signal Group", that way there isn't any confusion, and "7 Signal Group" can have a redirect. No. 2 NAME CHANGES AREN'T OCCURING. 16th Air Assault Brigade, the two Armoured BCTs, and 104th Log Bde have changed names, but almost all won't change until late 2022! No. 3 someone we also discussed on the Military History page is the use of a disambiguation after names. Because the British Army is the only one (as of 30 November 2021) to use the term "Signal Group" (indeed really any Colonel-lead "Group" (for the most part)) there is no need to distinguish it. However, something like 1st Signal Brigade or 2nd Signal Brigade needs it, so I agree with you there, but not here. No. 4 I can't revert edits, so I'll tag @Dormskirk about that. No. 5 please don't keep changing all the unit names, as I said (and if you indeed read the brochure as I did about 50 times by now lol) name changes won't happen till late next year, or even 2023 for the battalion-sized units when they re-structure (ie: fire a bunch of people). Coldstreamer20 (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick edition: @Noclador, regarding name changes "as they occur". Myself, @Buckshot06, and some other editors in this area (I believe @SmartyPants22 and @Peacemaker67 if I'm not mistaken were part of this) all agreed [eventually] that names shouldn't be changed as names are changing all the time. As a matter-of-fact I drove Buckshot insane as I kept changing 1st Armoured Infantry Brigade to 1st Strike Brigade / 1st (United Kingdom) Strike Brigade / 1st Armoured Brigade Combat Team, etc. So it was agreed that the names would stay as they were best/longest/commonly known. For instance, I'm even wondering if 12th Armoured BCT and 20th Armoured BCT should go back to 20th Armoured Brigade and just have a redirect. Either way, every unit doesn't need to be changed. If these name changes keep happening, there will be a bunch of broken re-directs (or double) as there now are because of the changes. Hopefully I was able to explain it a bit better there for you, cheers. Coldstreamer20 (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of the requirements for the WP:Featured Article process is stability of an article. We can infer, therefore, that stability should be maintained if possible. The British Army page has already officially changed over names for at least two BCTs to the new name. Thus, since the name has already been changed my !vote would be to keep the name of this page as it is now. Regards to all, Buckshot06 (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]