Talk:Royal Newfoundland Regiment

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

---

The Royal Newfoundland Regiment → Royal Newfoundland Regiment — Remove "The" as per proper naming convention. --Labattblueboy (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved, request withdrawn. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Royal Newfoundland Regiment → The Royal Newfoundland Regiment – The "The" is part of the official name of the Regiment (see other Canadian regiments pages). Amqui (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree Since the "The" is part of the official name, it should be listed as such.--Abebenjoe (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. "The" would not generally be capitalised in running text. Other Canadian regiments should also have it removed, as has been done with British regiments. The definite article is just not necessary on an encyclopaedia. When editors link to a title they generally do not link the definite article. We do not use "official" names, we use common names. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

  Official names has to be seen as "proper names", it is the proper name of the Regiment, the article is part of the name; removing it, it's like changing the name of a person. I don't understand why you link ""The" would not generally be capitalised in running text" because the "The" in the Regiment name should be capitalized in running text as part of the proper name and should always be there when the Regiment is named. Amqui (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 3) Oppose. Necrothesp said everything I was going to. The should not be used in the title unless it would capitalised in running text. Also, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAMES might be useful reading. Jenks24 (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

  It should always be capitalised as part of the Regiment's name. In fact, we should never read "The Royal Newfoundland Regiment" without the "The" and that's why it should be included in the title. See on all Canadian Forces webpages, even when they name the battalion they include the "The" in the name of the Regiment : [1] Amqui (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

  I disagree. Take, for example, this google news search. The majority of reliable sources do not capitalise "the" in running text. Jenks24 (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

  Reliable sources and news ? I think sources from the DND are more reliable then sources from a news reporter that doesn't know the real name of the Regiment. See [2], [3] and [4]; you can see the capitalised "The" in running text. I know it's against common use on Wikipedia for titles, but the name of the regiment including "The" should be an exception, because the article is part of the proper name of the unit. Amqui (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

  This doesn't just apply to Canadian regiments I assure you. However, WP:COMMONNAME still applies, and in running text that is "the Royal Newfoundland Regiment" and not "The Royal Newfoundland Regiment". -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

  Ok then, so be it. Amqui (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose In running text a lowercase "the" is employed. Beyond that, the capitalized The is not needed for identifications purposes. There wasn't a peep of dissent when it was moved to the current title and I don't see how anything had changed.Labattblueboy (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Cancel my request I agree with the last comment of Necrothesp. Amqui (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC) but I still think the intro should be the full name as the example of Bill Clinton from WP:COMMONNAME

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/his/ol-lo/vol-tom-3/par2/rnr-eng.asp. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Regimental WWI honours

Either a disputed or confusion has arisen concerning the topic of the timings of the Royal prefix given to the regiment during WWI. I've returned the text to the previous baseline until a common position is reached. I've likewise included Parsons as a source so that another source other than Nicolson is present.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Regimental WWI honours

Either a disputed or confusion has arisen concerning the topic of the timings of the Royal prefix given to the regiment during WWI. I've returned the text to the previous baseline until a common position is reached. I've likewise included Parsons as a source so that another source other than Nicolson is present.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• The previously included statement of "It had been 101 years since the original Royal Newfoundland Regiment, formed in 1793 and disbanded on July 31, 1802, had the honour of being called "Royal" and the first time that they earned it through their actions in combat" is untrue:

- In the previous version you had up it read as if the last time a regiment got the prefix "Royal" was 101 years ago but you also said that the prefix "Royal" was given to the Princess Charlotte of Wales' Royal Berkshire Regiment in 1885. That would be 32 years previous. Nicholson says, "After the passage of 101 years a regiment raised in the ancient Colony could once again proudly bear the title - 'The Royal Newfoundland Regiment'" Indicating that they had been called Royal before and were now called Royal again. I was trying to explain the 101 years from being called "Royal" to being "Royal" again.

• • The previous iteration of the regiment was created in 1795, not 1793

- The Newfoundland Volunteers, predecessor of the regiment, was given the prefix "Royal" in 1793 by Captain Thomas Skinner who recruited, clothed etc... the volunteers.

• • There is more than 101 years between the two reference dates

- I meant it as an appox. It was 32 years since a regiment was given the "Royal" prefix and 124 years since the Newfoundland Regiment had "Royal" in the title.

• • The two regiments are entirely different iterations and the comparison about the honour in combat isn't really relevant. The mention of the 1917 being a unique WWI honour is sufficient.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

- Different iterations, yes, but it was still a regiment raised from local volunteers with the same name. I believe it is worth mentioning.

I am really trying to nail down the date taht the Newfoundland Regiment got the prefix "Royal". I have three dates, December 10th, December 17th and December 19th. The archival documents from the time period say the 19th. The Regiment website says the 17th. However, when I originally spoke to Edward Roberts and Dr. David Parsons and Dr. Andrew Parsons last year they mentioned the 10th. And the wiki said September. It can't be September because the battles for which the honour was given were not until October and November, namely Cambria and Ypres.

I stand by my text for this wiki.

Military history of the Dominion of Newfoundland during World War II

I've moved content not directly attached to the regiment but still central to the WWII military history of Newfoundland to the following article: Military history of the Dominion of Newfoundland during World War II.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)