Talk:17th Lancers

WikiProject Military history

(Rated C-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): British military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800) American Revolutionary War task force World War I task force

Why is "regiment" done in italics throughout this article? --jpgordon{gab} 16:58, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Italics should be removed. If no one removes them, I'll get round to doing it. SoLando (Talk) 11:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Blah

I'm sorry, but this edit is the sort of thing that would see Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror retitled The Fourteenth Century-A Retrospective and re-written with all the style of a Haynes car repair manual. Not that there is anything wrong with a Haynes car repair manual, but it does lack−what shall we call it?−zip?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wally Wiglet (talk • contribs) 04:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm in the process of sourcing the article - should have added a tag to that effect! It's in a terrible condition right now, woefully incompatible with NPOV, V, NOT, and various guidelines on article standards - and, alas, I am responsible for that, having created the article (as a noob in 2004) when Wikipedia was still finding its feet on content issues. The elimination of the extraneous, fluffy language was meant only to be a provisional revision before an expansion could take place. Although in saying that, this is meant to be an encyclopedia, not Churchill's "History of the English-speaking Peoples" ;-). SoLando (Talk) 16:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I do apologize; I got a little carried away. It does appear that I inadvertently mistook you for one of those editors that wishes to ruthlessly erase all signs of individuality from every page of Wikipedia. Anyway, I don't think it's overly fluffy, although this may be because I have spent far too much time recently wading through the Victorian literature in search of information on Britain's earlier battle honours. Agreed, it does need work, but there are many, many worse. Again, apologies.Wally Wiglet (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No offence taken - well, at least not that much ;-). It isn't as hyperbolic and fluffy as it was in its 2004 state, but it's still mostly unreadable (would be nice to see the 17th Lancers on the main page one day. If only). Oh, and I can sympathise with you on reading Victorian literature - delving into Fortescue's regimental history this past week has been disorientating! Happy editing! 09:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)