Talk:Royal 22nd Regiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST 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 assessment scale.
WikiProject Canada / Quebec / History (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject History of Canada.


The popular nickname of the Van Doos in the Canadian army is, or was, "the Come-twicers", but I hesitate to add this piece of trivia to the article. Axel 18:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Add it if you can find a decent cite. The only nickname I have heard is "Van Doos", altho' also lists les hosties de queues plate, which I am informed means either (roughly) "flat-tailed bastards" or "flat dicks."[1] --SigPig |SEND - OVER 20:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Adjective preceding the noun?[edit]

I always thought that the adjective royale followed the noun, as in Gendarmerie royale du Canada. So wouldn't the Regt normally be "Le 22e Régiment Royal"? (I know it isn't, and I am not proposing it be so; I am just curious as to this bit of French grammar). Thanks. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 20:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutly right, the name of the regiment should be: « Le 22e Régiment Royal d'Infanterie du Canada » ; however, it is in the tradition to use « Royal 22e etc», although I don't know why. Boris Crépeau 06:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Adjectives generally follow nouns in French but there are many exceptions. In the context of regiment names, when France had royalty, the word "Royal" was used almost as if it was itself a noun: thus among regiments of the Ancien régime we find Royal-Auvergne, Royal-Comtois, Royal-La-Marine, etc. I think the form "Royal 22e" was influenced by those old names, perhaps not with impeccable logic. But if one insists on "Royal" being an adjective, there is the word order in exclamations (Triste soirée!) or in expressions of admiration (Heureuse affaire!); maybe regimental names are considered exclamations since regiments always get orders barked at them. Axel 05:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The Royal 22e Régiment, regardless of logic, is a proper name. It is neither a translation nor a nickname nor a tradition. It was submitted by the Department of National Defence in 1928 and approved by the Head of State, the King. It is now the only name used in ANY language, including English, by the regiment, by the Canadian Armed Forces and by the Canadian Government. This said, I share the view that the examples of the French period were motivation in structuring the name of the unit. VanDoo22 (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Van Doos meaning[edit]

Van Doos can also refer to a distant cousin, as in a cousin who is so far removed to be your second cousin. This should either be mentioned as part of disambiguation or as part of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:58, August 23, 2007 (UTC)


Is there any special dispensation for them to wear bearskins? Or is their use of the bearskin cap independent of the guards' use? (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


For civilian uses, particularly in the corporate world, French term for headquarters is indeed le siège social. However, for military or police organization the correct term is le quartier général. Please see So I changed that description. (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oka Staredown image - probably should be replaced[edit]

I did not add a non-free fair use rationale for this page for the Oka stare down image, as while filling out that rationale afaiac it failed one important criteria - I think it is possible that we could find free alternatives that illustrate the Royal 22e Reg. just as well or even better. I'll let someone else find/locate/choose an image to replace it with. Cheers. CraigWyllie (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Origin of "Van Doos"[edit]

Van Doos is actually a shortening of vingt-deuxième [22e is the french equivalent of 22nd (twenty-second), not 22 (twenty-two)] - with the extra letters tacked on the end, the x is now no longer silent, but is pronounced like an s, and so Van Doos.Rowena Thwaite (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears this has been fixed in the page. However, instead of calling it an "anglicized mispronunciation", I think an "anglicized approximation" would be more appropriate. It is, after all, an approximation of the nearest English phonemes to those in French. ( (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC))

Royal 22nd Regiment[edit]

The article name needs to reflect common english usage on english wikipedia with "Royal 22e Régiment" linking to it. Therefore the article needs to be moved to "Royal 22nd Regiment". UrbanNerd (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Also much of the article needs to be reworded to use the common english usage. Altho the regiment may be majority french, this is wikipedia english, and if there is a common english usage it should be used per MOS:CA guidelines. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd need to see better evidence before I'd support a change. Official usage, even in English, is Royal 22e Régiment. However, as UrbanNerd correctly points out, we rely on most common usage in English (assuming such usage is unambiguous and clear-cut); while an official name might help us determine common usage, we do not defer to it. IIRC, the Globe and Mail does refer to it as the Royal 22nd Regiment. But I'd need to see more analysis. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Agree in english its generally called " Royal 22nd Regiment" and has been for a long time in the press and books.Moxy (talk)
The media, including CBC, CTV and National Post amongst others refers to the 22nd regiment by their english name. Heck even Veterans Affairs calls them by their english name. It should be changed to reflect the english usage. UrbanNerd (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The Veterans Affairs example is not convincing, since one actually gets slightly more English-language page results on their website for the French name than the English one. Basically, that department is all over the map. CBC and CTV are also both a bit of an inconsistent mess as well (they both sometimes use "Royal 22e Regiment", without the accent), but for the most part stick to the English name (CBC more than CTV). I got results for both forms on the National Post website, but under 20 hits for both, so I don't trust their search function. We need to do more than just point to random examples on the internet, as none of the ones mentioned show a clear-cut common usage. A Google search of English-language websites resulted in 300,000+ uses of "Royal 22e Régiment/Royal 22e Regiment" and 1,000,000+ uses of "Royal 22nd Regiment" (and I added the word Canada to that latter search, just in case there's another Royal 22nd Regiment in a different country, but it only reduced the hit count a few thousand). To me, at least, that's convincing that the common usage in English is Royal 22nd Regiment. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Whether Veterans Affairs is a mess, or CBC & CTV are inconsistent are irrelevant. If there is a commonly english usage we use it and note the french usage. UrbanNerd (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
You're the one who relied on them as evidence. Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I used as examples of the english usage. I could care less if they use both. I'm not arguing that both are used. I'm simply saying that there is a common english usage. As the over 1,000,000 google hits back up. It's a pretty clear cut case. UrbanNerd (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not any common usage that is relevant, but rather, to use of the often quoted phrase, the usage that is "clearly the most commonly used in the English-language" (as per MOS:CA, WP:EN and WP:UCN). As per MOS:CA, if usage is ambiguous, stick with the official name; if the media is using both (which isn't actually the case here, if you read my comments), that does not help your case. If the test were actually any example of English-language usage, that would also undermine your argument, as we may as well keep the official name in that case since it is quite evidently also used quite commonly in English. But I'm not arguing with you on the result -- I'm the one that actually pointed out that the English-version of the name has far more hits than the official name, which makes it quite evident as to what the most common usage in English is. Google hits aren't always that reliable, but that's a pretty big spread between the two results. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Good catch. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
None of those regiments are widely recognized and discussed in the media. The Vandoos are. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
So in any-case I think we all (3 of us) agree here that in this article an english title is more then warranted right?Moxy (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. In this case there is a clear cut widely used english title. UrbanNerd (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, it's been done, I see. Admin RHaworth moved it and deleted the French-language page. I'd suggest that one of the supporters of this move clean up the usage of the French name within the article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If these changes were made in good faith, and are not vandalism, there is a requirement for a more thorough discussion. The credibility of Wikipedia is at stake. It is a reference for journalists and writers. If wrong information, such as the name of Canadian Army units, is inserted, it destroys the usefulness of Wikipedia. It is also an insult to the memory of the thousands of dead and wounded Van Doos . In this case the argument in favour of anglicising the official name of the Van Doos is that many journalists have done so in the past. If their mistakes are then used as a basis for Wikipedia, the process becomes a loop of errors that reinforce themselves. The name of the Royal 22e Régiment is not based on practise, it is a decision of the government that created it and maintains it. See .This page from the Directorate of History and Heritage of National Defence and the Canadian Forces makes it very clear what the name of the regiment is. I would ask that you refer to any press release or administrative document of the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Government to see substantiation of this point. If you wish, it might be appropriate to insert something along the lines of the following : The Royal 22e Régiment is sometimes referred to by its English translation, Royal 22nd Regiment, by some journalists ot their editors, but this practise is considered to be an error, inappropriate and insulting by members of the regiment. In comparison, I refer you to the English Wikipedia page for the Surete du Quebec which does NOT use the common English expression of Quebec Provincial Police. VanDoo22 (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Before you start accusing people of insulting "the memory of the thousands of dead and wounded Van Doos", please carefully read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Such hyperbole is not helpful. It would also be helpful if you read the naming conventions and guidelines referred to above - it would assist you in understanding that the official name is not determinative (nor are opinions as to what members may or may not find insulting). Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Seeing your edit summary for the main article, it would also be helpful if you did not make unfounded vandalism accusations. It does not help your credibility. GoodDay made those changes after a discussion here on the talk page - they were quite obviously not vandalism. If you disagree with those changes, then continue to pursue the issue on the talk page. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME states, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." That said, I'm finding a paucity of RS with the English name, compared to the French. You may be right. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Given the discussion above, I'm surprised you think there is a "paucity" of sources, reliable or otherwise. I'm hardly part of the "this is not the French Wikipedia wah wah wah" crowd, but I think MOS:CA, WP:EN and WP:UCN were all pretty clearly met here. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe that was the wrong word. Don't get me wrong, I'm strongly in favour of the common name guideline and have concerns about how the WP:SPA is pushing this. In fact, you'll see that I had initially rolled back his revert, before having second thoughts. It's just that there are more English RS using the French name than I had expected. I am not supporting VanDoo22 in this; at best, I'm neutral. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. This is definitely not black and white. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit conflict]The current page should revert to its original title of Royal 22e Regiment. That is the name of the regiment decreed by the King in 1928. It is a government unit. One may recognize its nick names, and even improper titles, within the text, identifying them as errors. One may use such names to direct searchers to the proper title.

However, one may not logically CHANGE the proper name of a unit that has existed under that name since 1928 and whose name is determined by the administrative law of the country.

In arguments above, it is held that Royal 22nd Regiment is the usage that is "clearly the most commonly used in the English-language" (as per MOS:CA, WP:EN and WP:UCN). The justification is based solely on google media searches. A more valid measure would be to find out how the military deals with the name - how the Department of National Defence deals with it - how the government as a whole deals with it. As well, Wikipedia suggests that one should examine how academic experts, as distinct from non-specialized journalists, deal with it. e.g. David Bercuson (a card-carrying Anglo at the U of Calgary) writes about the Canadians in Korea. For approximately 80 years the name has been Royal 22e Régiment, although in a country where Anglophones were most often unilingual, and often resistant to the idea of Canada having a French-language unit, the English translation was often used. For example, CBC documents giving background on the military refer to the correct name. But at times their reporters and those for various other English media will anglicize the name. (At times, certain French reporters also wrongly attempt to translate Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. Some even used to write about British Columbia as Colombie canadienne! All of that is wrong in any language.) Surely Wikipedia does not wish to associate itself with such an approach. The regiment has only one name, its official title. All the other nicknames and improper translations can be inserted into the text for information. But the bottom line is that users of Wikipedia need accurate information. This includes giving the correct name (for English usage) of one of Canada's best known units.VanDoo22 (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm thankful that you are now focused on the applicable namng conventions, rather than on what you think is insulting. As for the article name, it is simply a question of what is the most common usage. The official name is not determinative, nor is usage by David Bercuson (IIRC, Moxy referenced a number of books above that use the English version of the name). If the name is most often anglicized in common English-language usage, whether you feel that is correct or not, then the anglicized name is the one en-Wikipedia uses, in accordance with the applicable naming conventions. I am most certainly open to a discussion of what the most common usage is, and would be happy to support a reversion of the title, but only where it is shown that the most common usage in English is the French, official name. Telling me that people who use the anglicized version are all wrong is not a valid ground for a name change nor is it very convincing. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
As an aside, the military unit infobox template calls for "the formal name of the unit" at the top of the infobox. That should be the French name, regardless of the article name or usage throughout the body of the article. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


For those close to the issue this is of course blood-boiling question that they have had to deal with for decades. No offense intended. Here is another attempt at putting the question in Wikipedia terms.

There are two important criterion identified by Wikipedia's rules on titles : Reliable Sources and Neutrality

Counting the sources picked up in a wide-reaching google search are far from the reliable ones desired by Wikipedia. The most reliable sources in this case are (1)the various levels of government and public administrations; (2) academics who write about Canadian military matters (Bercuson is only an example - there are hundreds, all on the same page); (3) and lastly, the common name used by the organization itself. The internal correspondence only shows up on the internet in press releases, strategy papers etc. But these must be given very great weight since they reflect the work and terminology of a whole government. In the case of the Royal 22e Régiment, one can detect an unbroken progression in use of the French name from 1928 to the present where it is now an astonishing aberration to find a reference to the 1920s name of Royal 22nd Regiment in these milieux. I am sure that, if such were required, the Prime Minister's office would gladly direct a letter to Wikipedia. or issue a press release, indicating its view on the proposal by Wikipedia editors to disenfranchise the name of the Van Doos.

Neutrality is a key issue. Canada has had to deal with ethnic and cultural antagonism since its inception. The creation of the Royal 22e Régiment was a reaction, demanded by French-Canadians, against the refusal of the existing administrations to recognize the use of their language anywhere in the schools or administration under Federal or Ontario control. In the 1st Canadian Division, the 1,000(+) Franco recruits were dispersed into every unit, where most could not understand their leaders or their mates (see Chubby Powers memoirs - he served in WW1 in the RMR and was deeply offended at how his fellow Quebecers were treated). The R22eR was created as a result and has grown and expanded as a proud French-Canadian unit, cited by the Laurendeau-Dunton report in the 1960s , as an example for the federal civil service. The Van Doos have had to deal with almost a century of struggling to maintain their status as a French-language unit, while never dropping the ball in battle. The change of name by the King, in 1928, from RoyaL 22nd Regiment, in either language, to a French nomenclature, in either language, was a decision by Canada to affirm that in the future the regiment would continue to be recognized as a Francophone unit. Therefore the continued use of the 1920s era Royal 22nd is perceived (correctly) as a far-from-neutral refusal to recognize the Francophone nature of the unit. Journalists who use the term also generally fail to add expressions such as quote the Quebec-based Royal ... or the French-speaking Royal ....unquote. Their approach appears to aside the accomplishments in battle of Quebec's soldiers. Thus a change in the Wikipedia title of the unit, back to the era of the 1920s, would be an ethnic slur against one of Canada's best units and a denial of its Francophone nature ---- not to speak of being factually incorrect. On the other hand, journalists who are ill at ease with a French title (for example the names of Jean Chretien, Pierre Trudeau, Maurice Richard, Royal 22e Régiment), who nevertheless wish to signify the particular nature of the regiment, speak of the Van Doos. Quebec soldiers are more than pleased with that nomenclature that respects their identity (des vingts-deux), is not an ethnic slur and respects the rules of Wikipedia in regard to neutrality. VanDoo22 (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

When you say "those close to the issue," do you have an affiliation with the Van Doos? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I have removed your attempt to reproduce your argument a second time on this Talk page. It is not necessary and as Skeezix points out, it makes more sense to have the discussion in one place. You've made your argument at length, and pasting it repeatedly into this talk page doesn't help. I ask you again what your affiliation is with the Van Doos. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
My user name (VanDoo22) makes it clear, right up front, where my background knowledge lies. However, as a long-retired veteran,I have no employment relationship or obligation with the military. Nevertheless, a quick look at the Wikipedia rules on conflict of interest suggests that even someone in the most direct conflict of interest (not my case) has the right, indeed the duty, to intervene when damage is being done, unjustifiably, to the reputation of a person or organization. This is clearly in the interest of Wikipedia, not to speak of the person or organization in question. In the case of the Royal 22e Régiment, the damage is perhaps unintentional. One has to be thoroughly attuned to the history of the French-Canadian military in Canada to understand the damage caused by the change of a historical unit's name back to that of the 1920s era. Other French-speaking units are in a similar position, albeit they are younger than the Van Doos. Look at Wikipedia page "Regimental nicknames of the Canadian Forces", or your page on the "Canadian Forces order of precedence". Note in particular the Regular Force 5e Régiment d'Artillerie Légère du Canada, and 12e Régiment blindé du Canada, along with a great many Reserve units. In English Canada, the light artillery units are "Royal" and are designated "Horse Artillery" - Is Wikipedia going to use those terms or will it make a literal translation into the non-existent "Light Artillery Regiment?" The 12e RBC was very traumatically anglicized into the 12th Armoured Regiment (Three Rivers Regiment), for World War II, including the replacement of virtually all its French-Canadian officers. This was rectified after the war when the former names were re-established. The Wikipedia page gives considerable detail on this. Is Wikipedia going to change it back to the !2th Armoured Regiment (Three Rivers)? By the way, "Three Rivers is also verbotten in Canada.In short, it is my perception that you are starting on a long futile exercise that will unjustifiably damage many Canadian organizations and their members and hurt the reputation of Wikipedia as a credible source of information. Some of the discussion suggests that the effort could be limited just to the Royal 22e Régiment - which could call for considerable explanation as well. Why pick on the Van Doos, and not the others? VanDoo22 (talk) 03:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
RESEARCH ON USE OF NAME ROYAL 22nd REGIMENT (Note ammended conclusion)

Hi all As a newby I ask that you excuse my errors of protocol and format. However, because I appear to have jumped on a moving train, I hasten to provide my research in a format that you can use.

I have undertaken a Google search of title usage relating to the Van Doos, such as suggested by several on this site. I confirmed the reported findings. However, I have also attempted to "drill down" through the data to obtain the current linguistic usage of the title Royal 22nd Regiment. I used as criteria the date of publication, the language of publication and finally, in a supplementary search, the reliability of the data (i.e. using government web sites). Here are the results

Royal 22nd Regiment 1,730,000
Royal 22e Régiment 172,000
Royal 22nd Regiment 51,200 (any language)
49,600 (English pub)
Royal 22e Régiment 92,200 (any language)
41,400 (English pub)
Royal 22nd Regiment 47,800 (any language)
46,300 (English pub)
Royal 22e Régiment 85,900 (any language)
39,300 (English pub)
Royal 22nd Regiment 21,600 (any language)
20,600 (English pub)
Royal 22e Régiment 45,100 (any language)
21,300 (English pub)
Any time over the past 97 years:::::R22ndR 27,100;::::R22eR 24,400 of which 5,400 in English docs
Since start of 21st century:::::R22ndR 120;::::R22eR 11,600 of which 672 in English documents
In past 5 years::::::R22ndR 90;::::R22eR 10,300 of which 611 in English documents
Current year::::::::R22ndR 36:::::R22eR 538 of which 320 in English documents
Note: totals for English and French documents do not add up to the total for "any language". I suspect that Google has been stymied by the multiplicity of bilingual government documents and has only listed by language those exclusively in one language or the other.

NOTE: THE ABOVE DATA MISSED TWO SEGMENTS OF TITLES CAUSED BY THE COMMON ENGLISH LANGUAGE MEDIA PRACTISE OF IGNORING ACCENTS. THUS 329,000 PAGES FOR "Royal 22e Regiment" AND 10,500 PAGES FOR "Royal 22 Regiment" MUST BE ADDED TO THE DATA. The ammended conlusion, below, has been ammended to reflect the new data, not yet shown above.

The initial results of the previous research on this site have been validated in regard to the past 97 years of history of the Royal 22e Régiment except for the additional numbers of titles without accents
However the additional data shown above also seems to confirm that the English-speaking world, as reflected by Google searches, haa tilted to the use of the official French-Canadian title of the Royal 22e Régiment, largely setting aside use of the expression "Royal 22nd Regiment", a move started by the King in 1928. The expression "Royal 22nd Regiment" has virtually disappeared from official use, representing only 10% of references to the regiment in English within the wide field of Canadian government administration in the current year. In regard to ALL sources on the Web, worldwide, the use of approved title of "Royal 22e Régiment" in ENGLISH WEB PAGES was already dominant at the start of the century, surpassing the Anglicised version by about 20%. But, the gap has contimued to grow.
In the current year, in ENGLISH PAGES from all sources on the Web, the use of the term Royal 22e Régiment OUTNUMBERS the anglicized version by 50% , i.e.31,377 to 20,600. And, it is clear that this is the trend for the future. I invite the other members to replicate these figures and to advise me of any errors. I suggest that our editor consider reserving judgement and place in abeyance the finalisation of changes in the web sites, related to anglicizing the title of both the article and the regiment. VanDoo22 (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

VanDoo22 left a nice note on my talk page, asking that I hold off looking at all the data and information he provided above, as (s)he wants to review/revise it. I'm happy to do that. Once VanDoo22 has had the chance to revise the points (s)he has made, Shawn has suggested that we put another notice over at WP:CANBOARD/WP:CANTALK so as to expand the scope of this conversation, which is an excellent idea. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes more involved is always a good idea. Moxy (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I was directed here by Po' buster/PhilthyBear UrbanNerd to find out why my edit was reverted. I see this discussion, though, is about the article name, not the regiment's official name and its usage in both English and French. Regardless, I trust this source, the regiment's own web page, will quell UN's objections: "The English name 'Royal 22nd Regiment' is often seen, but strictly speaking is incorrect: only the French form is official."[2] --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the official name in English is the French spelling. The previous discussion centered on whether the article should be using the official (French) name or the arguably more common English translation. The decision to go with the latter does not in any way mean that we should not reference the official name in the lead and/or infobox. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I have no intention of disputing the article title. I was merely attempting to explain in the lead that the English translation of the French name is not, even in English usage, the regiment's official name. Which is why I was confused by UN's edit summary. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Hi, I have a couple of related questions regarding CBC and possibly NFB rich media in the external links. First, I see that we currently have four links to CBC rich media pages in their digital archives:

However, as indicated in the parentheses, the 2nd and 4th ELs are simply French versions of the preceding English webpage. I can't see a policy against this, but it seems to me to be unnecessary link clutter, as we do of couse have a French-language article on the regiment, for francophone readers.

Also, the NFB now has their own playlist for the regiment, here, which features excerpts from the documentary The Van Doos in Afghanistan.

I propose to cut the two French language CBC mirror links and add the NFB's to the bottom of the list. Are there any objections? thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There are times where it is necessary and appropriate to provide a non-English external link (almost always where there is no English-language version), but there is no need to provide alternatives to the English links in other languages. It is particularly unnecessary where, as in this case, the English external pages already contain links to the French-language versions. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 Done If anyone objects please discuss here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Support actions taken Moxy (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


Why the title is Royal 22nd Regiment, while even the first sentence of the article says that officially and in the usage in English the name remains Royal 22e Régiment? Even in the common usage in English, nobody use "22nd", every body say "22e" or "vandoo". Official publications in English also always use the official name (in French) nowadays. It is a proper name, ans as such, not translatable. All other Regiments who has English official proper names are not translated on the French Wikipedia. Obviously, it still should be explained that the name means "22nd", but it shouldn't be the title of the article. Amqui (talk) 03:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

ERROR : confusion between Voltigeurs and the Van Doos...[edit]

It is written : « The War of 1812: Défense du Canada 1812–1815,[17] Châteauguay, Ferme Crysler[18] »... These were VOLTIGEURS, light infantry battalions constituted by George Prevost and put under the command of Charles-Michel de Salaberry : they have nothing to do with the 22 Royal Regiment!!! --HawkFest (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

In 2012 the R22eR was designated to perpetuate several units from the War of 1812 and the R22eR now holds those honours as a result of these perpetuations. Here’s a good article on these new perpetuations and battle honours: War of 1812 Battle Honours perpetuated by Canadian Army Units Indefatigable (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Royal 22nd 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)