Talk:Royal Norfolk Regiment

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This merge discussion has been ongoing since 2010, and there is clearly no consensus developing to merge the two articles. I think we can call this discussion closed now. WTF? (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

---

I've proposed merging the 9th Regiment of Foot into this article, as the two articles describe the same unit - one up to 1881, one 1881 onwards. The unit didn't change in 1881, unlike most Army regiments; the 26th Regiment and upwards were merged, but the 1st to 25th merely got new names and absorbed new reserve/volunteer battalions. In effect, there's complete continuity between them, and there's no need to separate the articles. Shimgray | talk | 01:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand its one way of keeping the unit history into mangeable lumps, rather than having to spin off into a separate history of... GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it really depends how much material there is. The 8th (The King's) Regiment of Foot and King's Regiment (Liverpool) have very substantial articles that would be much too long if merged, whereas the 17th Foot/Royal Leicestershire Regiment manages to fit into a single article. What we don't want is a poor quality mess like Queen's Royal Regiment (West Surrey).Lozleader (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. The 8th Foot has a very large post-1881 article, and I'm still indecisive about whether or not to merge that, but I think when we've got two shortish (or, at least, not unreasonably long) articles, merging them's a good way to go. At the moment, the 1st through 7th and 11th through 25th are all dealt with as single lumps.

As to the Queen's... ugh, I'd missed the Tangier regiments. One more for the to-do list. Shimgray | talk | 16:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest this be closed now? This proposal seems reasonable, in that (as you say) the same format is used in other, similar, articles. As it has been on the table for over three years, now, I would suggest if you still wish to do so, to go ahead with it. Moonraker12 (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Still not convinced the merge is a good idea. 1881 is a convenient cut off date to keep articles shorter. With nineteen battalions in the First and a lot as yet not covered for the Second, Korea etc they might as well stay separate rather than merge and then split up again when the content gets too long. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Merge

As there were no fundamental objections to the above proposal I have merged in the early material in order to achieve the same format as similar articles. I have also properly sourced all the incoming material. We can split the material up again if the content of this article gets too long. By the way, I agree that 8th (The King's) Regiment of Foot and King's Regiment (Liverpool) are too long to merge. If anyone feels strongly to the contrary please revert what I have done. Dormskirk (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Le Paradis

Why is the use of dum-dum and shooting of German parlimentaires not mentioned? --41.132.28.243 (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there any proof of it?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Royal Norfolk 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://user.online.be/~snelders/sand.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.regiments.org/regiments/uk/inf/009RNorf.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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} 01:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Wrong image?

A reader wrote to Wikimedia to point out that the image used in the article is that of the Norfolk Regiment, not the Royal Norfolk Regiment. Because the underlying image itself is identified that way, someone may need to check with the creator of the image. The reader doesn’t feel comfortable editing so I volunteered to pass this information along. I hope someone will look into the image and remove it if in fact it is incorrect.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The Norfolks became the Royal Norfolks by the addition of "Royal". Essentially the same regiment with enhanced title. Not an issue I feel.GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The Norfolk Regiment and the Royal Norfolk Regiment is the same military formation. Dormskirk (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Royal Norfolk 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/20160428143223/http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/pooleys_revenge.htm to http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/pooleys_revenge.htm

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) 11:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)