Jump to content

Talk:Duke of Wellington's Regiment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

First comments

[edit]

The last time I checked, this was the 'Free Encyclopedia', for anyone to freely edit. This page is a mess, so all I do is try to clean it up. I have not attempted to change anything, beyond adding links. I have accepted that the Colours are displayed in a particular order, so isn't it better that they all be in a line? Shouldn't the 'Great Duke' have a link to his own page? Shouldn't the link to the regiment's website be available? User: Hammersfan 19/1/05. 11:52am

Regrettably; your editing has changed the layout of the page several times, you have changed the pixel size of the regimental colours, placed them in different shaped frames, moved them and the text around to different positions which has affected the layout, you have deleted blank lines used as spaces for formatting, causing following sections to move up the page and into the sections above, you have deleted some images (a VC Medal) and changed the layout so other images (the last two Victoria Cross recipients for example) did not appear on the page. You have moved a template's position from the top of a page to halfway down it. All these changes have resulted in phone calls to our Archive staff by readers about how bad the page looked, requiring repeated attempts by our staff to sort the mess out. which was then again edited by yourself. If so many people call us because they don't like the way you have changed things then we feel bound to change it back. Sorry if you don't like it yourself, but most others do. Please note the layout is designed to look ok on a standard 15" screen at 1400 x 1050 pixels viewed full width without side bars. We don't wish to stop any person from constructive editing it is their right. The wording 'The Great Duke' was put in as a name for one specific person in history ie the first Duke, the linked page refers to the title and subsequently all 8 Dukes of Wellington, not all of them were linked to the regiment. As for putting a link to the Regiments website, we did not feel it to be a good idea to put in a link to a Ministry of Defence edited site, so just showed the address for those who wish to view it, please note that the MOD requires all it's regiments to have their sites controlled by their webmaster after April 5th 2005 with others not permitted, I do seem to recall being advised wikipedia did not like having links to external sites which are not open source, but stand corrected if that is not so. We also do not accept personal abuse as per a message on one of our staffs talk page. Duke of Wellingtons Archives Dept 19/1/05 10:41pm

Well correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a personage of the status of this Great Duke is more than likely to have his own page on here. I also do not recall making any abusive message to anyone. Last time I checked, 'mind your own business' is hardly abusive, unless that particular individual is sensitive. However, I do not appreciate threats to try and have me banned, simply for doing what this whole site is supposed to be for, and feel that I have the right to defend myself. User:Hammersfan 21/1/05 20:40

Sorry to intrude on private grief, but the present formatting and layout of the page is quite poor, and simply reverting User:Hammersfan's assistance is hardly helpful. Some comments:
  • The page should look fine on any size of screen with any resolution.
  • There is a lot of good information, but the text is rather dense and could do with a good copyedit. In particular, the lead is not a good summary of the whole article: the second lead paragraph could usefully be incorporated into the body of the article and a replaced by a new, gentler introduction.
  • The "Other information" section duplicates information in Template:The Duke of Wellington's Regiment
  • The list of VCs is great, but surely the photos of each VC holders should appear on the person's page, rather than in a gallery here.
It also seems a little peculiar for User:Richard Harvey to call himself "Duke of Wellingtons Archives Dept" (I see anon reverts to the main article by User:62.252.96.6, User:62.252.96.9 and User:62.252.96.10 have used a similar designation - e.g. this one "Layout corrected by Regimental Headquarters Archives Department"). Are you connected in some official way with the Regiment? In any event, this is a Wikipedia page, not the homepage of the Regiment: anyone can make any edits they like, subject, of course, to others editing away afterwards. That is the wiki way. But in any event, I am rather surprised that edits to this page have resulted in "phone calls to our Archive staff by readers about how bad the page looked, requiring repeated attempts by our staff to sort the mess out". "Archive staff" (whoever they may be) as not responsible for this article in any way.
Finally, a link to the regiment's home page sounds perfectly sensible. Other than avoiding a forest of marginally relevant external links, I am not aware of any policy to limit links to open source site (if there were, there would be very few external links!). HTH. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:48, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The Template:Duke_of_Wellingtons_Regiment_history can probably be dropped. I made it back in the old days before categories and the links are now contained in the "Reasons for creation" section of the other template. Also the external links for VC recipients to victoriacross.net is now completely pointless as that site has migrated its content to Wikipedia (Wikipedia:WikiProject Victoria Cross Reference Migration). Geoff/Gsl 12:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks - I've just completed a very substantial copyedit, so I'd be grateful if there was a discussion here before it is reverted wholesale.
Rather than dropping Template:Duke_of_Wellingtons_Regiment_history, the neatest solution I could find was to merge it into Template:The Duke of Wellington's Regiment (it is also used on the pages for the 33rd and 76th, and I've adopted the same approach on those pages too).
I've also moved a few images around (for example, I've put the four Colours in a table so they should display in the correct relationship to each other: please complain if they are in the wrong place); added subheadings, wikified generally, and so on. I think it looks a great deal better, but please discuss here if you have objections to the changes. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


The changes done by me user:Richard Harvey are mainly uploading of images (yes I am connected with the regiment I've ten years active service ,back in the 70's and I am currently the Regimental Photo Archivist at the Regimental Headquarters in Halifax) when I started to put in images I have always tried to preserve the layout that was created by prior users, it looked good, I've not done any major text edits that has been done by others more knowledable than myself, changes marked by archives dept were done on a consensus of others in the dept, other's done by myself at home hence the change in designation.

With regard to the Colours I've uploaded. I wanted to show these in the manner in which they are carried on Parade ie in a line with the regulation colours in the centre, On my screen they appeared like that (15" flatscreen at 1400x1050 pixel) with the text at the right hand side, at the moment they appear in a box formation, with the text below, I could redo and upload them as one image if people think it is better.

The combined badge that has been swapped from further down the page into the Template in place of the regimental cap badge is incorrect, that is the insignia of the 'Regimental Association' and not the Regiment, it really needs swapping back.

Putting the Template:Duke_of_Wellingtons_Regiment_history into [Template:The Duke of Wellington's Regiment]] is a good idea it cleans the page up, but it looks lopside, can it be centralised within the second template. I prefer the item to be wikified, but only reverted User:hammersfan edits that had altered they full page layout. If I'm wrong I apologise. I'm new to wikipedia so need helping.

Phone calls were made to myself and others, by people who we have encouraged to get onto and look at the site in preference to the MOD site, they assumed we had made a mess of it and were calling us to redo it.

When I uploaded the images for the VC Recipients it was intended for them to be on the page to be viewed by people who saw the links put there previously, at that time there was no page showing them so I will now go and put the images on the user pages where they do not exist. Richard Harvey 15:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I was getting a little concerned about your "ownership" of the article: any wikipedia article is liable to be edited by other users, so whatever is there today may not to be there tomorrow. This can lead to chaos, although blatant vandalism is usually corrected very quickly. However, on the positive side, other users often correct spelling, grammar, layout, etc, and the result is often surprisingly good. If someone thinks the page is a mess, the wiki answer is to "fix it yourself".
Re the Colours. Previously, the four images were dotted around the screen with little apparent rhyme or reason. If you want them in a horizontal line, it could be done thus:
File:DWR Honorary Queen's Colour.JPG
DWR Honorary Queen's Colour
File:DWR Regulation Queen's Colour.JPG
DWR Regulation Queen's Colour
File:DWR Regulation Regimental Colour.JPG
DWR Regulation Regimental Colour
File:DWR Honorary Regimental Colour.JPG
DWR Honorary Regimental Colour
but your combined image is probably a better solution (if a little wide!).
Sorry if I made an error with the badge - I presumed that Image:DWR Combined Badge small.jpg was the badge of the Regiment, and Image:DWR Cap Badge small.jpg was the cap badge. If the first relates to the 'Regimental Association' only then the article probably ought to say so.
I agree: the pages for the VC recipients would be a better place for the images.
I trust you think the balance of my edits were an improvement. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:06, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Funnily enough the way you put the colours above is the way I had put them, before somebody moved them. But I do prefer the simple replacement image I've done. I have now reduced that to 600px so it should be a bit narrower (it is an 800pixel Image). Your editing of the text is far better than my friends is, which will upset him. Thank you. The combined badge is used around barracks on signs and in media items, but is not worn on clothing other than sports or members privately bought t-shirts, etc. The brigade recognition badge is the same colour as the Regiments stable belt ie red, grey, red in horizontal bands.

I have put the images for the VC recipients in their user pages, I've never liked calling them VC winners as It's not exactly a competition to get them, but an award for an exceptional act above the norm. Should the links to the old external VC site now be removed from the end of each persons name. Also I noticed in some recipients User pages some external links which don't appear to go anywhere. Richard Harvey 00:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Talk page comments

[edit]

I don't follow the logic of blanking the talk page just due to age of the comments. Common practice seems to be to leave them in place, and archive when the pages gets over-large. Alai 06:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BA

[edit]

I have removed the BA, as wiki elsewhere doesn't add it for the literally 1000s of entries where people are entitled to such accademic post noms. The DofW surely has enough proper honours not to worry about it. It was anyway incorrectly placed (as it is on the Army website *strangely*) BA follows the DL rather then preceeding it [[1]]

I have uploaded a scanned image of the Winter 2005 Regimental Magazine Page showing information including the post nominals of the 8th Duke of Wellington. See [2]. These are shown with the BA before the DL, which is the way the 8th DoW wishes it to be shown. Therefore, surely, it should be left that way. Unless of course you wish to write to him at Apsley House to query it yourself. Richard Harvey 00:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard as I indicated the order being used is wrong - please follow my previous link - check with the crown office or any other official source (which the regimental link most certainly isn't) for defining post nominal order. Even Wiki's entry manages to get the order right. That the duke can't get his own post nominals correct is his fault - and the armies I presume in following it blindly without checking theres - but that's no argument for any resource that wishes to be credible to follow anything but the actual rules. To put the question in your own terms - who sets the rules for the order for post nominals - It isn't the recipient. I understand your regimental pride but that is not an argument to knowingly repeat an error simply because a rightly respected individual has.
If you must put BA back - I'm trying to clarify if using it at all is against the manual of style put it back in the correct places as defined by the rules - this is not a regimental resource and should not repeat their doubtless entirely well meaning mistakes.Alci12 14:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

[edit]

This article is almost good enough, in terms of content, to be a featured article - see WP:WIAFA for the criteria. Where is really falls down, at the moment, is references and citations. Would it be possible to add some more?

It may help to have a peer review first. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


6th Batallion during World War II

[edit]

I have added details about the 6th Batallion and it's poor performance during the 2nd World War, more specifically, during the battle of Normandy. I will probrably add the full report by the CO of 6 Bn, DWR, when I find "Overlord" by Max Hastings. Tommy!!! 10:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hook

[edit]

The Hook was a geographical feature, and accordingly we refer to it with a capitalised T in 'The'. but not as 'the Hook'. Nitpicking perhaps, but its always better to have these things correct. The sub-heading 'Battle of The Hook' was change to reflect its geographical identity. Brian.Burnell 12:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holland

[edit]

The person who changed the words "southern Holland" to the southern Netherlands should revert the change without further ado. In English idiom, (and this was an English version of Wiki when I last checked) the term Holland is frequently used to refer to "The Kingdom of the Netherlands" to give that place its full legal title. Here in Wiki we are not producing a legal tome, but a readable reference source, and full legal descriptions are used when necessary, but readability and a good narrative flow are also important. My brother fought with the British Army to liberate the people of France, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg and Germany. He would not (then or now) ever describe his part in this great enterprise as liberating the French Republic, The Kingdom of Belgium, The Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Third Reich. He used the short form in common use then and now, and saved what breath he could for fighting and surviving. Brian.Burnell 16:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Southampton, England.[reply]

The person who corrected this error musn't anything. There is no Roosendaal in southern Holland, period. There is one in the south of the Netherlands (nobody says you should use "The Kingdom of The Netherlands"). Getting the facts right is important. Fnorp 18:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Well ....... if getting the facts right is important ... then the language purists should aspire to that also. FACTUALLY SPEAKING .... the correct term is 'The Kingdom of the Netherlands'. But of course most sensible people will agree that some abbreviation is desirable. Pehaps I should also point out that when visiting the supermarket today I purchased some Gouda cheese. It was labelled, as all food products are labelled with its country of origin to comply with EU laws. In this case the label said 'Produced in Holland'. So it seems that the mighty European Commission in Brussels is on this side of the fence in authorizing the term 'Holland'. THe language purists must be feeling a little isolated. Brian.Burnell 03:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Guilford Courthouse wording

[edit]

Ok, we clearly need to talk about this. In the part about the Battle of Guilford Court House, I changed "The British suffered heavy casualties but they defeated the American force, nearly twice their size." to "The British suffered heavy casualties but they forced the American force, nearly twice their size, to retreat." To me, that's more accurate, as the British army was left with a much smaller army, and the battle eventually led to the British defeat in the war. In the Battle of Guilford Court House article, it even says "Seeing this as a classic Pyrrhic victory, British Whig Party leader and war critic Charles James Fox echoed Plutarch's famous words by saying, "Another such victory would ruin the British Army!"" --Awiseman 13:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; Sorry to take so long to reply I was rather busy elswhere. I agree the wording is debatable, according to ones own definition of the Word defeat, also in the perceived action that led up to it, ie with or without a large and sustained battle, according to whose account of the event you read. The account of the fighting in the article Battle of Guilford Court House is not fully accurate in its description, from the history I have read by other editors. I will therefore rewrite the section in the 33rd article and leave the Battle of Guilford Court House alone, thereby allowing a comparison to be made, I do want to research some maps first though. No doubt one or the other will be perceived as more substantial. I do however feel that the word defeat is correct at this time. A bit like a boxer who throws in the towel in the first round is considered to have been defeated, when others may consider it a tactical withdrawal. So may I suggest we leave it, as is, until I can do the editing? Richard Harvey 14:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair. I guess it does depend on the definition of defeat. As for the battle, the Park Service website [3] says the British "tactically defeated" the Americans, and calls it the "high water mark" for the British. So maybe that's the only change we need to do, "defeated" to "tactically defeated." I'd be fine with that. I'd be happy to see what changes you make too though. --Awiseman 15:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the idea be to commemorate the 33rd's tenacity in this battle? Outnumbered on the offensive, they still engaged and subsequently forced the Americans to retreat. I don't want to be rude but I find it oddly perplexing that an American is grieving about what is said on a Wiki article written about a British Regiment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.240.129 (talk) 17:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree. This is an encyclopedia entry not a regimental history and, without wishing to be rude either, we should be moving on from that C19th style of writing about military subjects. It is possible to be objective snd still do credit to the achievments being described. JF42 (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

33rd Foot Cornwallis Reenactment Company photo

[edit]

Greetings!
I would like to add some information to the photo of the AWI period soldiers of the 33rd Foot. This image is a crop of a larger image taken on 29 July 2001. The original image was taken by Judy Polinsky at the Warner Brothers Ranch in Burbank, California. The original image is copyright 2001 by the 33rd Regiment of Foot, Inc. We are delighted for this image to be used in the Wiki article. The soldiers in the image are (from rear to front) Drum Rct. Matthew McGee, Rct. Thomas Fitzhenry, Pte. James Bradford, and Pte. Jacob Jenks. (Matt Ehrlich, Rick Feingold, Brett Landis, Spencer Deal)
For more information on the re-created 33rd Foot, please visit: www.33rdfoot.org

Cheers! 64.236.243.16 18:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Radford Polinsky[reply]
(Serjeant John Savage, Col's Coy. HM 33rd Foot)


Kosovo deployment

[edit]

Changed from company to battalion as this was a battalion deployment.

During early February The Dukes were doing training in the UK and only fully deployed as a battalion later in the month. I have now clarified that in the main text. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle honours

[edit]

Was the 33rd Foot a recipient of the Abyssinia (battle honour)? That article does not list them as receiving it, although it mentions that it was awarded to both Indian & British army units. (If it didn't that would be odd since the 33rd Foot played such an important role, & would need to be explained.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was awarded to them and is mentioned on page 191 of the JM Brereton and ACS Savoury book 'The History of The Duke of Wellington's Regiment (West Riding) 1702-1992 (ISBN 0 9521552 0 6). The article On the Battle honour only appears to list the British Indian Army units that received it! Richard Harvey (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split?

[edit]

I wish to propose splitting this article. It is already 79 MB long, which is pretty big; also, it is out of step with other articles on British Regiments, which (generally have separate articles on their pre- and post-1881 incarnations. This one has a separate article, and a summary here, for the 76th Regiment of Foot, but has the detail of the 33rd Regiment here.
I would propose moving much of the content of the "Formation and name" and "33rd Regiment (1702-1881)" sections to their own page, leaving a summary (as for 76th section). The new page would be 33rd (The Duke of Wellington's) Regiment in keeping with other, similar articles.
Opinions? Xyl 54 (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is 79kB long, not 79MB, which is nothing compared to the 164kB article on Circumcision! Having just merged the former 33rd Regiment of Foot article into this article to correct a considerable amount of incorrect information, within the separate articles I do not believe that splitting the article again would be the best thing to do. It would duplicate a considerable amount of information regarding battles, battle honours, colours, images and history. As the regiment has now itself amalgamated with two other old Yorkshire regiments, to form the Yorkshire Regiment the article is static and unlikely to change. Your suggestion may well require the updating of two or possibly three separate articles, for example when battle article are moved retitled or created. As for the summaries of the 33rd and the 76th, note that the 33rd is the Duke of Wellington's regiment, it having changed its title in 1853, the 76th became its 2nd battalion in 1881, as per the article details. Regiments that are 'split', as foot regiments, before 1881 have generally had a name change at that date, due to being two separate regiments prior to then. The section title "33rd Regiment (1702-1881)" was a bit misdirectional, so I have changed that. Richard Harvey (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for joining this debate a bit late but I support the proposal to split the article as proposed. I agree that it is out of step with other articles on British Regiments which amalgamated with other regiments in 1881 and believe the split should go ahead for that reason. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confused and think the Duke of Wellington's Regiment did not exist prior to 1881. Obviously you have missed the fact that the 33rd of Foot was renamed as the Duke of Wellington's in 1853, as mentioned above by Richard Harvey and in the articles regimental history. The 76th Regiment of Foot, which became the 2nd Battalion of the Duke of Wellington's in 1881 already has a separate article. The 33rd was in continuous existence from 1702 until it became part of the Yorkshire Regiment in 2006, even then it retained its antecedent regimental name until those were dropped in 2013, though the foot regiments number is still retained. The Colours carried by the Duke of Wellington's Regiment, showing its Battle Honours remain the same. On 18 June 1853 the Adjutant General 'G Brown' sent the following communiqúe to the Regiment " Her Majesty has been Graciously pleased to command that the 33rd Regiment of Foot shall Henceforth, bear the name of 'The 33rd ( or The Duke of Wellington's) Regiment, which Honourable distinction shal be inscribed on the colours of the Regiment". The Regiment was presented with a new set of Colours bearing that inscription on 28 February 1854; and are now laid up in Halifax Minster. There was continuity of Battle Honours on those colours after 1881. There was not a new stand issued, as though a new regiment, with a new set starting for Honours awarded after that date. To therfore arbitrarily cut a regiments history in two would be a retrograde step and a fundamental change to the actual history of the regiment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.249.164 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not confused and nor have I missed the fact that the 33rd was renamed in 1853; so, with respect, it is you who are mistaken on both those points. My reason for supporting Xyl 54 is that what happened in 1881 was the amalgamation of two regiments (see for example) and not a continuation of one of them. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent reference which supports what I said. Quote " (By a wry turn of fate, in 1881 the 76th amalgamated with the 33rd Foot and acquired the title Duke of Wellington's, the 33rd having held that title since 1853.) " . The inference being that the 76th took on the title of the 33rd, becoming their 2nd Battalion. In addition the 76th Regiment's Colours were replaced with new ones, showing the title 'Duke of Wellington's' on 2 May 1887. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.249.244 (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that is helpful: where did it come from? By the way, while I accept that there was continuity of battle honours on the colours of the DWR after 1881, other new regiments formed by amalgamations e.g. the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry also benefited from continuity of battle honours on their colours (see "DCLI colours: 1915 silk postcard" for example). So continuity of battle honours is not in itself a reason to treat the DWR differently from (say) the DCLI. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I now see you are also quoting from Corrigan. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby league

[edit]

I can't find any references for Brian Curry, Roy Sabine, or Jack Scroby having played rugby league Tests for Great Britain, or England, were they tourists? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not 'Tourists' they are all true blooded Yorkshiremen. All were National servicemen, when they played for the Dukes. There is a photo of Jack Scroby on the Dukes website page here:- The Dukes and Rugby - History of Rugby Within the Regiment and a reference to him talking about his Professional rugby career on this page:- 1st Battalion - National Service 1948 –1962 There is a photo of him from his days with Halifax and his player statistics on this website page:- Halifax RLFC website. Brian Curry played for Fartown and did score a try against Australia in 1963 whilst playing in a Fartown V Australia friendly. There is a downloadable pdf mentioning it on this website page:- Huddersfield Giants Supporters club. Roy Sabine was inducted into the Keighley RL Clubs Hall of Fame in 1999. There is a Keighley RL team photo from 1962 showing Roy Sabine on it on this website:- Halifax Courier website. However I don't think they played in internationals, other than for the Army Team. I have a contact who knew all of them so I will see what I can find out from him. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is the reply to my query, The person concerned is a former regimental officer who played for the Dukes after joining the regiment in 1959;- "The Rugby League players in 1959 when we played Ulster were Jack Scroby (Second/Back row), Army cap and a Rugby L International Halifax RL; Norman Field (Wing) Keighley and Bradford RL; and Derek Davies (Centre) Bradford. On return from Ulster in 1960 in Brentwood & Colchester (& Kenya). Arthur Keegan (Full back/centre) Hull & RL International; Charlie Renilson (back row) Army, Halifax & RL International; Brian Curry (centre) Halifax & Army; Roy Sabine (centre) Keighley & Bradford. In Jan 1962 there was also Croft and Schofield in the side that beat the KOSB." Richard Harvey (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information, I'll try to incorporate it into the players articles. As a true blooded Yorkshiremen myself, no slight was intended by the term 'Tourist', as it refers to a player who has been selected to participate in an overseas tour, e.g. 1910 Great Britain Lions tour of Australia and New Zealand. Not all players selected to tour will necessarily participate in the Test matches, but may participate in matches against clubs, counties, and districts in the country being toured, etc. Would your contact be able to provide forenames for Croft and Schofield? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are Pte Paul Schofield and L/Cpl David Croft. A photo of them can be seen here:- 1962 Dukes team . You may recognise a couple of the other names shown there, as English and Scottish international players:- Mike Campbell-Lamerton, Charlie Renilson, Dennis Shuttleworth (later Brigadier Dennis Shuttleworth OBE). Some of them I knew from my time with the regiment. Something that may be of interest to you, is that Jack Scroby played for Bradford Northern when he was called up for his national service, with the Dukes. Whilst out on patrol, in Londonderry during 1958, he was intercepted by Trevor Foster, who at that time was a club official with Halifax RLFC and signed up for Halifax whilst sitting in a Landrover on the Craigavon Bridge. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American War of Independence: Harlem Heights

[edit]

This was a minor episode but if it's to be included it needs to be researched properly and re-written. A principal role in the engagement was played by two of Howe's light infantry battalions who are not even mentioned, while the 42nd Royal Highland regiment- are mentioned here but as distinct from the Black Watch, which was simply the nickname- in that period- for the 42nd.

Might I suggest, however, that devoting space to describing in some detail a minor action in which the 33rd played no active role while passing over significant battles such as Brandywine Creek and Monmouth Courthouse, does not produce a balanced article.

The Harlem Heights/Fort Washington section could usefully be compressed to reflect the significance of the role played by the 33rd. JF42 (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC) JF42 (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The role of the 33rd in this battle remains unclear. The sentence describing British forces engaged overlooks the light infantry battalions which played a central role in the fighting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JF42 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Having researched this action more thoroughly for the Wiki article, it is clear that while the 33rd were part of the Reserve that was ordered up in support of the Light Infantry while they made their fighting withdrawal from Washington's lines, it appears only one battalion of the 42nd and the Hessian jagers actively engaged with the enemy during the 2 hr exchange of fire that constituted the main part of the action. Men of the 33rd Light company may have been involved as part of the 1st Light Infantry battalion but given the token involvement of the 33rd battalion companies, it really isn't clear why the action of Harlem Heights is included at all in this abreviated history of the regiment. JF42 (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended the article accordingly, with a much abbreviated reference to the action. JF42 (talk)

"The British forces prevailed in taking the objective. However, "

[edit]

What purpose is served by two long paragraphs that appear to deal primarily with the Guards division at the battle of the Alma and which do not mention the 33rd at all? JF42 (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point I've trimmed the section down. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warley

[edit]

"The regiment returned to Warley in Yorkshire to rest, recruit and retrain."

You might want to check that location. Warley in Essex was the location of a large military encampment in the later C18th. The area of woods and heathland was used for manoeuvres and royal reviews. See the well-known paintings by P.J. de Loutherbourg from 1778. A number of regiments were sent to there to reform and recuperate after the return from the continent in spring 1795.Jf42x (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Duke of Wellington's Regiment. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 10:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Duke of Wellington's Regiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 07:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Duke of Wellington's 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:

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Duke of Wellington's 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:

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) 16:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering of battalions

[edit]

The 1/4th, 1/5th, 1/6th and 1/7th battalions...

Does this mean 1st/4th etc? I don't see how the 1st battalion can be merged with more than one other battalion. Valetude (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that mergers were not involved. This was the first line of battalions: 1/1st, 1/2nd, 1/3rd, 1/4th etc. As the demand for more troops increased, a second line was raised: 2/1st, 2/2nd, 2/3rd etc. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duke_of_Wellington%27s_Regiment&oldid=1207052427"