![]() | Bengal Native Infantry was nominated as a Warfare good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 23, 2018). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bengal Native Infantry 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 |
![]() | Bengal Native Infantry received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Bengal Regiment page were merged into Bengal Native Infantry on 19 June 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
I believe that Coren Bot has been tripped by the list of regiments, this is to be expected I suppose. It is not copyright infringment, it is a list of regiments, there is no other way of expressing it. Woody ( talk) 17:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I've re-done the list of regiments, adding information that was previously absent from the page. If anyone has any suggestions for improving the list (given the limited space) I'd love to hear them Exemplo347 ( talk) 21:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I have added a second list of regiments with their post-1861 titles. Exemplo347 ( talk) 10:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The Pre-1857 list of Bengal Native Infantry Regiments contains a large number of red links. As per WP:REDDEAL these are intentional links to pages that could plausibly be created - each Bengal Native Infantry Regiment meets the notability guidelines laid out in WP:MILUNIT. WP:REDDEAL also states that valid Red Links should not be dealt with by removing the link brackets.
I propose merging the page " Bengal Regiment" into " Bengal Native Infantry" for the following reasons:
I am aware that the article entitled Bengal Regiment has been present on Wikipedia for a number of years and attracts more page visits than Bengal Native Infantry. This does not, however, excuse the fact that the article is inaccurate in every detail from its title onwards. Therefore I propose that these two pages should be merged as described with inaccurate content removed and Bengal Regiment possibly becoming a redirect page linking to Bengal Native Infantry. Exemplo347 ( talk) 01:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I have made edits to the article that includes information you appear to be requesting. I would be particularly interested to see how uniformity within the lists can be maintained (given that the full regimental titles do not all end simply with "Bengal Native Infantry" - the 38th Regiment of Bengal Native Light Infantry (Bengal Volunteers) for example) using the editing style you suggest. If the lists can be simplified in a uniform manner without removing any factual information then I look forward to seeing it. Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT, particularly the small section on article appearance - inclusion of factual information is more important than a personal point of view about the way the article looks. Please see List of Regiments of Foot for an example of another similar list of military units that includes full titles - the phrase "regiment of foot" appears hundreds of times within this article with no complaints about redundancy. Exemplo347 ( talk) 17:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
It appears that the examples you have given unwittingly prove my point, not yours. The "shortened" names here:
are actually not shortened at all. They are the full title on the date the list refers to, as are the entries in these lists. If you click on the articles and read them you will see that (for example) the 6th Gurkha Rifles was actually called the 6th Gurkha Rifles in 1922. I hope this finally resolves the naming issue for you. The names given on each of the examples are not shortened for expediency or removal of redundancy or they would doubtless have been reverted for reasons of accuracy - they are the full regimental titles at the time the list refers to, as are the ones in this article. As for these examples you have also listed:
They link to existing articles that state within them that they were named as described at the time referred to in this list. As an aside, cutting out the ad hominem and phrases such as "It is my opinion that "most" readers will not be suffering from any form of Alzheimer" may make your arguments seem more plausible. Exemplo347 ( talk) 06:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Eddie891 ( talk · contribs) 12:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll be starting soon. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose merging 3rd Regiment of Bengal Native Infantry into Bengal Native Infantry. I think the content in 3rd Regiment of Bengal Native Infantry can easily be explained in the context of Bengal Native Infantry, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Bengal Native Infantry. Grumpylawnchair ( talk) 21:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Bengal Native Infantry was nominated as a Warfare good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 23, 2018). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Bengal Native Infantry 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 |
![]() | Bengal Native Infantry received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Bengal Regiment page were merged into Bengal Native Infantry on 19 June 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
I believe that Coren Bot has been tripped by the list of regiments, this is to be expected I suppose. It is not copyright infringment, it is a list of regiments, there is no other way of expressing it. Woody ( talk) 17:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I've re-done the list of regiments, adding information that was previously absent from the page. If anyone has any suggestions for improving the list (given the limited space) I'd love to hear them Exemplo347 ( talk) 21:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I have added a second list of regiments with their post-1861 titles. Exemplo347 ( talk) 10:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The Pre-1857 list of Bengal Native Infantry Regiments contains a large number of red links. As per WP:REDDEAL these are intentional links to pages that could plausibly be created - each Bengal Native Infantry Regiment meets the notability guidelines laid out in WP:MILUNIT. WP:REDDEAL also states that valid Red Links should not be dealt with by removing the link brackets.
I propose merging the page " Bengal Regiment" into " Bengal Native Infantry" for the following reasons:
I am aware that the article entitled Bengal Regiment has been present on Wikipedia for a number of years and attracts more page visits than Bengal Native Infantry. This does not, however, excuse the fact that the article is inaccurate in every detail from its title onwards. Therefore I propose that these two pages should be merged as described with inaccurate content removed and Bengal Regiment possibly becoming a redirect page linking to Bengal Native Infantry. Exemplo347 ( talk) 01:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I have made edits to the article that includes information you appear to be requesting. I would be particularly interested to see how uniformity within the lists can be maintained (given that the full regimental titles do not all end simply with "Bengal Native Infantry" - the 38th Regiment of Bengal Native Light Infantry (Bengal Volunteers) for example) using the editing style you suggest. If the lists can be simplified in a uniform manner without removing any factual information then I look forward to seeing it. Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT, particularly the small section on article appearance - inclusion of factual information is more important than a personal point of view about the way the article looks. Please see List of Regiments of Foot for an example of another similar list of military units that includes full titles - the phrase "regiment of foot" appears hundreds of times within this article with no complaints about redundancy. Exemplo347 ( talk) 17:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
It appears that the examples you have given unwittingly prove my point, not yours. The "shortened" names here:
are actually not shortened at all. They are the full title on the date the list refers to, as are the entries in these lists. If you click on the articles and read them you will see that (for example) the 6th Gurkha Rifles was actually called the 6th Gurkha Rifles in 1922. I hope this finally resolves the naming issue for you. The names given on each of the examples are not shortened for expediency or removal of redundancy or they would doubtless have been reverted for reasons of accuracy - they are the full regimental titles at the time the list refers to, as are the ones in this article. As for these examples you have also listed:
They link to existing articles that state within them that they were named as described at the time referred to in this list. As an aside, cutting out the ad hominem and phrases such as "It is my opinion that "most" readers will not be suffering from any form of Alzheimer" may make your arguments seem more plausible. Exemplo347 ( talk) 06:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Eddie891 ( talk · contribs) 12:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I'll be starting soon. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose merging 3rd Regiment of Bengal Native Infantry into Bengal Native Infantry. I think the content in 3rd Regiment of Bengal Native Infantry can easily be explained in the context of Bengal Native Infantry, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Bengal Native Infantry. Grumpylawnchair ( talk) 21:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)