Every time l look at Unit Titles, I feel it’s un normalized because of the repeating parts is some titles. I have attached full (-80%) listing in a workbook. Out of 3243 records a lot fall into one of these repeats:
- First Case
- The Calgary Regiment, 1st Battalion
- The Calgary Regiment, 2nd Battalion
- Etc.
- Second Case
- 102nd Regiment
- 103rd Regiment
- Etc.
- Third Case
- 50th Bn. C.E.F.
- 51st Battalion CEF
- Etc.
- Fourth Case
- ‘A’ Battery, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery
- ‘B’ Battery, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery
- Etc.
Most (90%) of these have subunits A ... D plus two, which again get tack on the front (or back) of the title. I have not written those out because of the repetitiveness of it. (and a little lack of need).
As with all things military, Units are formed with regimented titles and as time goes each unit makes it individual. Because there is so much regimentation, there are a hand full of abbreviations that get used (sometimes in the formal title and mostly not), that can hide the repetitiveness of it. Same goes for placing the sub-unit in front or behind (I’m starting to wonder if it also an era thing).
So, the question “Is this table “Normalized”?
I think ‘June7’s tag line may fit here, "Normalize until hurts, denormalize until it works.".
Thank for Looking and thinking about this