Talk:Royal Artillery

Untitled

The History section looks like a direct lift from the Royal Artillery's own web site: http://www.army.mod.uk/royalartillery/history.htm

I'm going to remove it. Feb. 24, 2006 70.48.192.160

In actual fact, I wrote most of the history section of our article, so it rather appears that the Royal Artillery have made a direct lift from Wikipedia! I've restored the section. -- Necrothesp 19:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad you spotted this. Sorry for deleting your stuff. March 3 70.48.192.160 (though it keeps changing the number)

Ordinal numbers of regiments

If I remeber rightly from my time in the RA the unit numbers are cardinal and not ordinal numbers. I have changed these after looking at http://www.army.mod.uk/royalartillery/ra_units.htm. TinyMark 18:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Or was the ordinal numbering only for RHA Regts? I decided not to make the changes because I would have to move all the other Regimental pages, and make a lot of redirects! If anyone else wants to - good luck. TinyMark 18:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

26 Regt. RA

I removed this text froom the article:

Among the Territorial Army regiments was the West Riding Artillery.

File:26asLogo.jpg

26th Regiment Royal Artillery Association. In 1993 the association was formed to enable serving and ex serving members of the regiment to meet bi-annually. Since then the association has grown in membership and currently have approximately 500 full members. Hopefully, the associations web site will reach people in all parts of the world that either serve or have served in 26th Regiment Royal Artillery, whatever their cap badge might have been. 26th Regt RA Association

I am moving it to the 26 article. TINYMark (Talk) 16:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Royal Regiment of Artillery

I have recreated the Royal_Regiment_of_Artillery page, and removed redirect to the Royal_Artillery page. Why?? They have two distinct capbadges, and while the history is linked together, they still have there own distinctions. In the British_Army, its ALL known as Royal Artillery, but within the Gunners, its very distinct. QUESTIONS???? --Jezarnold (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Images of all Battery emblems

I would like to place the image of every Battery emblem against each battery page. Is this possible? Or does it go against the rules of Wikipedia:Images --Jezarnold (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Facts

As a chance reader, I found this section to be highly relevant, very helpful indeed--and not idle trivia as opined by the person who added the trivia template (which I've lifted). The only real trivia was the following, which can already be found in its proper place-- the Spike Milligan article. * During World War II comedian Spike Milligan served as a signaller in the 56th Heavy Regiment, D Battery, as Gunner Milligan, 954024. Bjenks (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

lots of different Categories

Browsing through the [[Category:Royal_Artillery_regiments]] I discovered something that needed amending, which I did. I then discovered more categories.. [[Category:Royal_Artillery_regiments]], [[Category:Units_and_formations_of_the_Royal_Artillery]], [[Category:British_batteries]].. In my opinion, I believe Wikipedia has too many categories. Would it be wise to categorise all these units with just ONE category?? I believe [[Category:Units_and_formations_of_the_Royal_Artillery]] would be the most suitable.. Jez ☎ ✉ ✍ 13:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue is over-categorisation. There should be nothing (or little) in Category:Units_and_formations_of_the_Royal_Artillery. All the batteries should be in Category:British_batteries and not in the main Units cat. Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The other problem is Category:British_batteries should be called Category:Royal Artillery batteries. I'll get this renamed Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain why we can tolerate an article like D Battery Royal Horse Artillery which is nowt but a collection of empty subheads? Meanwhile, other articles containing notable events and facts are being speedily deleted! Cheers Bjenks (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry User:Bjenks... I have slowly been creating the batteries for some time, but work and fitting a new kitchen got in the way.. if you could hold out for a few weeks, and I will have all the info there soon. Cheers User:Kernel Saunters for the re-categorisation. As you mentioned the Batteries themselves should really only be [[Category:Royal Artillery Batteries]] and the Regiments [[Category:Royal Artillery Regiments]].. Thanks! Jez ☎ ✉ ✍ 16:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Who Commands A Gun?

Are all guns commanded by Commissioned Officers in the Royal Artillery? User 070 (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Gun commanders are usually sergeants. Officers command troops and higher. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-free file problems with File:Royal Artillery Cap Badge.jpg

File:Royal Artillery Cap Badge.jpg is non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Royal Artillery Cap Badge.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Joint Ground Based Air Defence

The source given in The Future of the Royal Artillery section says "12th and 16th RA will continue to be under the joint Army-RAF unit, Joint Ground Based Air Defence" however the reference only says where the units are and where in the future the units will be based. Please rectify. Gavbadger (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Royal Artillery During WW1

I note this article is lacking badly when it comes to its history during arguably its most formative war IE ww1 ,can someone add a seperate page to the RA during ww1 as to have so little info about it is doing it a dis-service Bullseye30 (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to go ahead, though it might be better to expand the current article rather than adding a new page / article. Hamish59 (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Royal Artillery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131023001138/http://www.army.mod.uk/artillery/23445.aspx to http://www.army.mod.uk/artillery/23445.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 9 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Royal Artillery → Royal Regiment of Artillery – Incorrect Name for this Regiment, it should be Royal Regiment of Artillery. Royal Artillery is just a short hand term/nickname Cunobeline (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• The current title is the WP:COMMONNAME most often used for this regiment. It should not be changed unless consensus is gained in a discussion requesting this move.--John Cline (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
• @Cunobeline and John Cline: Queried move request. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Firstly, this is clearly not a technical request. Secondly, it is clear Royal Artillery is the correct name. It is the name used on their official website. It is the name used for the Royal Artillery Association. It is the name overwhelmingly favoured by reliable sources (around 5-1). AusLondonder (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The correct name is The Royal Regiment of Artillery, as established by the Royal Warrent issued by the king of the day. This has always been, and remains, the name of the Regiment. Royal Artillery is the abreviated name which is commonly used, but is not the actual name of the Regiment. This is also reflected in the names of its offshoots in other nations such as The Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery and The Royal Regiment of Australian Artillery. It's also worth pointing out that the first line of the article states The Royal Regiment of Artillery. As a serving officer in the Royal Regiment of Artillery I'm pretty gob smacked that this is even being debated let alone contested. There is only on official name for the Regiment, so far as I'm aware this hasn't changed for the best part of 300 years. Just as the Royal Regiment of Scotland is commonly referred to as the 'Scots' doesn't make this the correct name for the Regiment.

The Royal Artillery Association, if you navigate to their page, also states at the top of their first page 'Royal Regiment of Artillery'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cunobeline (talk • contribs) 21:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Also worth pointing out that The Hiuses of Parliaments Hansard (the official record of the house) refers to it correctly as The Royal Regiment of Artillery https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-07-04/debates/16070443000002/RoyalRegimentOfArtilleryCorpsOfRoyalEngineers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cunobeline (talk • contribs) 22:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

As military historians and ex-Army ourselves, many of us know all this. Please read WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME. The regiment is invariably referred to as the Royal Artillery in all but the most formal situations. By historians, by writers, by the media, and by the Army itself. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME Dormskirk (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Its common name is and always has been the Royal Artillery. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per common name. It should be mentioned that, while their are other "Royal Artillery's", I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who wouldn't assume it was the british one, much the same as with "Royal Navy". Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.