Talk:Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment

Line infantry vs. Rifles

According to an old version of the official Regimental website, Privates were (are?) known as Riflemen. Make what you will of this. 202.89.153.10 10:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This uses the word "rifleman" to mean the standard profession of infantry, as opposed to an infantry specialist - in this instance, rifleman means the same as "gunner" would in the artillery. It does not mean that the RNZIR is a regiment of rifles. Hammersfan 21/02/07, 17.35 GMT

Marhc

Does this regiment have any marches? 202.89.155.94 03:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Mech vs Motorised

The term mechanised refers to a force that uses tracked vehicles for mobility. Within the NZDF there are no tracked vehicles within service, so the reference to one battalion being mechanised is incorrect. 203.109.225.42 11:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The reference to 1st Bn RNZIR changing from mechanised infantry back to light infantry in 2012 is misleading, for QAMR does not contain any infantry, However the description of QAMR as it is now organized is also ambiguous. The regiment is equipped with infantry vehicles, but do they contain infantry? My understanding is that they are vehicle crew only, and that the regiment would be operationally combined with infantry from the RNZIR in battle. This should be clarified.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Heritage

The heritage of a regiment, and its right to battle honours, is not as simple as implied. It is not correct that "Because it is recruited on a nationwide basis, and has no specific regional links, the Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment claims descent from the old New Zealand Regiment and all previous Territorial Infantry Regiments of the New Zealand Army". Royalcourtier (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

No operational or administrative role

I believe that the RNZNIR does not have any actual administrative role, and does not exist as a regiment except on paper. To call it the "parent administrative regiment" is probably false.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I can see your point. By all means pls feel free to suggest a better way to describe it. Anotherclown (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130821002700/http://army.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/army-news/armynews440.pdf to http://www.army.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/army-news/armynews440.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rarasa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/A-Duty-Done.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Recents edits require RS and proper citations

User:49.190.53.232 has been making extensive edits to this page for some time. I am concerned that some of these edits are not based on WP:RS and that many of the refs provided are bare links, User:49.190.53.232 please take the time to find RS and provide proper references that can withstand WP:Link rot, as this is not something that someone else should have to clean up later. Mztourist (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I do not believe any of the links will lead to WP:Link rot however I have had to fix up some cites to conform with cite format. With this subject you need to be aware that there are not a lot of cites available for this subject in the first place that aren't just quoting pages from a few books thus possibly presenting somewhat of a bias approach (e.g the McGibbon book) hence I have cited a large number of sources and made NOTES where there has been a discrepancy (only two instances.) I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor, and I am not really sure what the problem is. Would you mind to explain further. Sorry for my ignorance. I might be technically deficient in something I am not aware of. I do need to fix some things on this still. 49.190.53.232 (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

As you say you are not an experienced Wikipedia editor then you need to familiarise with certain key policies and requirements before editing further. See Wikipedia:Link rot#Manual archiving: "Avoid bare URLs. Use citation templates such as {{cite web}} for citations" this requires you to provide the following details: url= |title= |last= |first= |date= |website= |publisher= |access-date= . In relation to your comment that "there are not a lot of cites available for this subject in the first place that aren't just quoting pages from a few books thus possibly presenting somewhat of a bias approach (e.g the McGibbon book) hence I have cited a large number of sources". Please read WP:RS. McGibbon is a reliable source, whereas websites maintained by individuals or veterans organisations generally will not be RS and should not be relied on. It is preferable that you use a few good books rather than a large number of blogs and websites as those are not subject to any objective review. Mztourist (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Vietnam Section Transfer

I propose that the majority of the Vietnam be transferred to another page like 'Military history of New Zealand in the Vietnam war' as this page is supposed to be a summary of the history not a full blown essay. In addition, this would increases the readability of the page as the section will not take up nearly as much as it once did IronBattalion (talk) 01:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support splitting it out, but as there is already a page New Zealand in the Vietnam War it should either be moved into that page or set up as a new page titled something like Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment in the Vietnam War Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Currently I support moving it to a new page (at least temporarily) as the New Zealand in the Vietnam war is more of a summary of all units rather than a detailed exploration into the actions of the units involved and while the page could be changed its just too much of a hassle with possible edit warring. IronBattalion (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Mztourist has raised the standard, textbook, response, but yes, right now there is a problem with the textbook response: it looks like just moving it to New Zealand in the VN War might just overwhelm that page. From this Kiwi, I'm happy with whatever you two decide. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Side note, can we please get some sort of protection for the Vietnam section, because it is still increasing and making this problem worse than it already is. Currently the main perpetrators of this continuous increase are IP addresses, and while they are not actively vandalising the article, they are not discussing the main problem of this article; that it's too long and the Vietnam section is solely to blame. That said, I don't want them banned, I just want them discussing it with us. IronBattalion (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)