![]() | Yeomanry Cavalry 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. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 11, 2020. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bold textAnyone out there know where the Queen’s Own Royal Glasgow and Lower Ward of Lanarkshire Yeomanry Cavalry fit into all this? Thanks, ::Supergolden:: 12:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Who is the "warden of the yeomanry" (from the article on Praise-God Barebone)? -- CopperKettle 00:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The text on April 12, 2012 reads: "The word 'yeoman' refers to small farmers who owned the land they cultivated as opposed to peasants, but the officers were drawn from the nobility or the landed gentry, and many of the men were their tenants." Assuming "men" in the sentence refers to yeomen, how could yeomen own the land they cultivate yet be tenants of the gentry? The sentence is confusing to the reader. I thought a knowledgeable editor could make the sentence clearer.04:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I made a minor edit to make the sentence clearer. Please look over my small revision. Iss246 ( talk) 14:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I think this article suffers from an identity crisis:
I've already started work on expanding the article, and plan to restrict the subject to the "Yeomanry Cavalry" that existed between 1794 and 1908 (including the period 1901-1908 when it was known as the Imperial Yeomanry). The implication is that post-1908 details will be covered in summary form only in an aftermath section, and I think that in due course the lists of surviving yeomanry units might be better moved out to a separate list article. Inviting comments on this from anyone who wants to weigh in on the subject. Factotem ( talk) 14:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Although the page move request below is not appropriate, I do believe that separate articles for "Yeomanry" and "Yeomanry Cavalry" are justified. The former would be a general history from formation to modern day, and the latter specific to the period from formation to 1908 when it was a discrete institution. To accomplish this I plan to revert this article back to how it was before I started editing it, and move my own edits to the existing "Yeomanry Cavalry" disambig page. I am aware that this will need the page history and the current peer review to be moved, and will seek the help of an admin to do this. Inviting comments here. Factotem ( talk) 08:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Closing with no move. The nominator has withdrawn the request in favor of creating separate articles for the Yeomanry and Yeomanry Cavalry. Cúchullain t/ c 15:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeomanry →
Yeomanry Cavalry – Correct historical name for the force
Factotem (
talk)
12:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Details rationale:
There is an existing page for Yeomanry Cavalry, but it is a rather pointless DAB for just two of the many yeomanry cavalry regiments (in the UK alone, one of the two actually refers to a New Zealand unit). As this page exists, I understand that I need an admin to actually make the move, assuming there are no objections. Factotem ( talk) 12:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment As noted above, "yeomanry" is a generic, collective term that encompasses a range of organisations that trace their origins to 1794 and exist today in a very different form. The name "Yeomanry Cavalry" represents a distinct, albeit nebulous institution that survived the disbandment of its original parent organisation the British Volunteer Corps and only ceased to exist as an independent entity when it was combined with the Volunteer Force to form the Territorial Force in 1908, at which point it relinquished its own local control and, like the Volunteer Force units, came under the administration of County Territorial Associations. We have separate articles for a whole raft of British auxiliary forces which, in addition to the three already linked, include the Militia, the Volunteer Training Corps of the First World War and its Second World War equivalent the Home Guard, the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve and the modern day Army Reserve. Why should the Yeomanry Cavalry be any different? Now it looks like I made a big mistake to effectively hijack the original Yeomanry article, and there should probably still be a separate article covering the general subject "Yeomanry", but I think the subject matter for "Yeomanry Cavalry" warrants its own article, and the large number of GBooks hits seems to support this. Factotem ( talk) 16:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I would like to withdraw this request, with thanks to everyone who contributed. I believe that separate articles for "Yeomanry" and "Yeomanry Cavalry" are fully justified, but realise that this is not the correct way to do it, and will pursue this by different means. See the "Article scope? - Page split" section above for more details, and please do voice any concerns there. Factotem ( talk) 08:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Cite 11 has a CS1 warning (original url defunct I think) [1] this might help. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 13:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
![]() | Yeomanry Cavalry 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. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 11, 2020. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bold textAnyone out there know where the Queen’s Own Royal Glasgow and Lower Ward of Lanarkshire Yeomanry Cavalry fit into all this? Thanks, ::Supergolden:: 12:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Who is the "warden of the yeomanry" (from the article on Praise-God Barebone)? -- CopperKettle 00:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The text on April 12, 2012 reads: "The word 'yeoman' refers to small farmers who owned the land they cultivated as opposed to peasants, but the officers were drawn from the nobility or the landed gentry, and many of the men were their tenants." Assuming "men" in the sentence refers to yeomen, how could yeomen own the land they cultivate yet be tenants of the gentry? The sentence is confusing to the reader. I thought a knowledgeable editor could make the sentence clearer.04:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I made a minor edit to make the sentence clearer. Please look over my small revision. Iss246 ( talk) 14:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I think this article suffers from an identity crisis:
I've already started work on expanding the article, and plan to restrict the subject to the "Yeomanry Cavalry" that existed between 1794 and 1908 (including the period 1901-1908 when it was known as the Imperial Yeomanry). The implication is that post-1908 details will be covered in summary form only in an aftermath section, and I think that in due course the lists of surviving yeomanry units might be better moved out to a separate list article. Inviting comments on this from anyone who wants to weigh in on the subject. Factotem ( talk) 14:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Although the page move request below is not appropriate, I do believe that separate articles for "Yeomanry" and "Yeomanry Cavalry" are justified. The former would be a general history from formation to modern day, and the latter specific to the period from formation to 1908 when it was a discrete institution. To accomplish this I plan to revert this article back to how it was before I started editing it, and move my own edits to the existing "Yeomanry Cavalry" disambig page. I am aware that this will need the page history and the current peer review to be moved, and will seek the help of an admin to do this. Inviting comments here. Factotem ( talk) 08:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Closing with no move. The nominator has withdrawn the request in favor of creating separate articles for the Yeomanry and Yeomanry Cavalry. Cúchullain t/ c 15:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeomanry →
Yeomanry Cavalry – Correct historical name for the force
Factotem (
talk)
12:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Details rationale:
There is an existing page for Yeomanry Cavalry, but it is a rather pointless DAB for just two of the many yeomanry cavalry regiments (in the UK alone, one of the two actually refers to a New Zealand unit). As this page exists, I understand that I need an admin to actually make the move, assuming there are no objections. Factotem ( talk) 12:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment As noted above, "yeomanry" is a generic, collective term that encompasses a range of organisations that trace their origins to 1794 and exist today in a very different form. The name "Yeomanry Cavalry" represents a distinct, albeit nebulous institution that survived the disbandment of its original parent organisation the British Volunteer Corps and only ceased to exist as an independent entity when it was combined with the Volunteer Force to form the Territorial Force in 1908, at which point it relinquished its own local control and, like the Volunteer Force units, came under the administration of County Territorial Associations. We have separate articles for a whole raft of British auxiliary forces which, in addition to the three already linked, include the Militia, the Volunteer Training Corps of the First World War and its Second World War equivalent the Home Guard, the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve and the modern day Army Reserve. Why should the Yeomanry Cavalry be any different? Now it looks like I made a big mistake to effectively hijack the original Yeomanry article, and there should probably still be a separate article covering the general subject "Yeomanry", but I think the subject matter for "Yeomanry Cavalry" warrants its own article, and the large number of GBooks hits seems to support this. Factotem ( talk) 16:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I would like to withdraw this request, with thanks to everyone who contributed. I believe that separate articles for "Yeomanry" and "Yeomanry Cavalry" are fully justified, but realise that this is not the correct way to do it, and will pursue this by different means. See the "Article scope? - Page split" section above for more details, and please do voice any concerns there. Factotem ( talk) 08:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Cite 11 has a CS1 warning (original url defunct I think) [1] this might help. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 13:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)