Talk:Royal Wessex Regiment

This article screams of speculation and unverifiable claims - there is no evidence whatsoever, beyond vague references to a Southwestern Regiment in the early Government proposals listed as references, that the D&D and RGBW, plus the "Hampshire elements" of the PWRR, would have been amalgamated. Indeed, as I recall, the proposals would have seen the RGBW split, with the Gloster part combining with the D&D as part of The Light Infantry, and the Berks and Wilts part amalgamating with the PWRR. It is not appropriate to include something on here as fact which plainly is not fact. Hammersfan 12/02/07, 15.25 GMT

I have removed the "original research" tag, after citing an article in the Daily Telegraph. As of July 2004, the ECAB recommendations stood as mentioned in the article. Political pressure forced the turn of events. 67th Tigers 23:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Although the history etc. is undeniable, I wonder whether the capbadge etc. is. It's also debatable as to R Hampshire's status, since the argument was still raging when 2 R Wessex bit the bullet.

While I cannot deny the presence of a published article from the Daily Telegraph mentioning the possibility of a Wessex Regiment, the article is a highly speculative one regarding a process of consultation about policy that was not firm for another. The article also mentions seperate regiments of Highlanders and Lowlanders in Scotland. Why not make Wikipedia pages for those also? This is a main article about something that should be less than a footnote. Hammersfan 13/02/07, 09.55 GMT

Let's hope this won't devolve into an edit war, like we had about "The Rifles".

The move to 15 multi battalion regiments (Foot Guards, Lowland, Highland, PWRR, RRF, R Anglian, R Lancs (as then was), Yorks, Welsh, Mercian, Wessex, LI, RGJ, R Irish, Para and RGR) was recommended by ECAB in March 2004. The Foot Guards was immediately vetoed, and the Divisions directed to work out their plans for implementation (including which Bns to cut), reporting back in October 2004 (both CSC and POW Div met on 4 Oct 04). In Scotland, the Council of Scottish Colonels was dominated 4-2 by Highland Regiments who forced the Lowland Regiment to take the first cut (5-1 vote), and disputed the second (hence a 1 Bn R Lowland is not viable, and we get the Scots).

The KORBR disputed the assigned name for the "Royal Lancaster Regiment", giving rise to the KLBR before they finally gave into "Duke of Lancasters".

Anyway, while I search for public domain references (although somewhere in a morass of paperwork I think I've got an unrestricted letter mentioning the R Wessex), I'll charge you to dispute specific parts, some of which might be disputable, while other aren't. 67th Tigers 11:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

While I maintain that this is an inappropriate article, given there seems to be very little in the way of publically released or verifiable sources about its subject (and that its existence should be left to a footnote on the infantry page), I will nevertheless attempt to work to make it more appropriate. I would ask however that you not link it to any pages other than the infantry page until further proof is provided. First, I have removed all mention of symbols, music, personalities etc. This cannot be included because you yourself listed everything as "probable" or "likely". Probable and likely do not equal proof. The fact that it took many months for the regiments that actually were formed to agree on designs for their regimental symbols shows that it takes a long time to get these things done. I have also, until such time as you can provide actual public sources to the contrary, removed all mention of the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment being deamalgamated. None of the sources you have provided thus far makes any mention of this. In addition, one of your Daily Telegraph articles only specifically mentions the Scottish regiments, and therefore cannot be included in this article as evidence of the so called Royal Wessex Regiment. Hammersfan 13/02/07, 13.25 GMT