Talk:Australian Light Horse

message: I see that there is a redirect here from Light Horse (H cap'ed).  Should it be the other way around?, this article spells it with a cap H. or maybe it should be lower cased in the article. I think it should at least be consistent.  --68.198.246.166 01:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Australian camps on slopes of Olivet & Mount Scopus3.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 10, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-09-10. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng  {chat} 15:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Australian camps on slopes of Olivet & Mount Scopus3.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: In this section the following appears (note the use of the double and single quote marks)— 
* "Specially Sighted Telescopic Rifles will be issued, stated in Routine Order No. 112 by Major G.M.M.Onslow, 7th Light Horse A.I.F., dated 2nd October, 1915. In this, is the extract from Operation Memo. 73 where the specially sighted telescopic rifle issued at the rate of four to each Brigade of the Division, 'for use at sniping posts by SPECIALLY SELECTED MARKSMEN ONLY' (ref: AWM4-10-12-4.pdf page 9). 
I can see where the single quotes delineate the text, but the opening double quote is not transparent. Can this be corrected or should I just assume and close the quote before the first comma? 
The other issue is the grammar of this section— "In this, is the extract from Operation Memo. 73" where the comma is confusing and the stop after "Memo" confusion to the modern reader. And it is about the way we read stuff these days, is it not? 
I will make the indicative grammar enhancements at the end of October 2012 if none object. Lin (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Thanks for that, Montanabw. I did go to the WikiProject equine page, before deciding to change the equine level to 'Mid,' as it appeared to more accurately reflect the importance of this article, following the criteria I found there. This article is widely interesting to readers interested in the horse family and ww1. Could you please change it back? --Rskp (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  Sorry.  This article may well be of higher importance in military history than to equine history.  Horses in World War I is of "mid" importance,  (As is Horses in WWII) this is a spinoff article also about one group of WWI horses, from one geographical region.  This article is analogous to Horses in the Napoleonic Wars, which is also ranked "low" importance.  We are generally very hesitant to rank many things mid or higher, as while they may have high importance to a specific subset (if we had a horses in military history wikiproject, for example, but we don't), but in the general theme of the 3000+ articles tagged for WPEQ, this doesn't cut it.  That said, if you want to discuss at the talk page of WikiProject Equine and a different consensus is reached, I would be fine about having a very civil discussion of the matter, but this would mean raising the various specific warfare articles from "mid" to "high" and then we'd have to raise Horses in Warfare from "high" to "top," thus creating an inflationary spiral, which is my concern.  Montanabw(talk) 17:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Equine 

message: Is it really that important?
It's obvious that both forms are in common use today. 
So who cares? HiLo48 (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia MOS Capital letters. --Rskp (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you be more cryptic? HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Gday - re the ANZAC / Anzac issue like AR I'm not particularly wedded to either (and there are definitely arguments in favor of the latter I agree). Currently the consensus at Talk: ANZAC Mounted Division is against moving that article so think it would be wise to just try and forget about the issue in the interests of your own sanity. Reason for the revert is that it seemed to be part of the previous pattern of editing plus the fact that your edit changed the wikilink to a name other than that used by the article. I am quite happy with either being adopted as long as its consistent within the article, doesn't break any wikilinks, and is true to the original style adopted by the article (i.e. we don't go and make changes to the format in any article as it currently stands) unless community consensus changes. Anotherclown (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that Anotherclown. Will you be changing the article back, to reflect its original style? --Rskp (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello again. I'm not sure I see any benefit in doing that. For better or worse the article as it stands now reflects the current consensus on the name of the division, so changing back to the opposite would now seem contrary to that. Equally, whilst my opinion is that the terms are interchangeable, given the current consensus others may not agree with me. I do think it would be best to let sleeping dogs lie and try and adopt a status quo ante bellum approach by leaving everything the way it is and moving on to more important things. Anotherclown (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, thanks for that. However, in order to follow the status quo ante bellum approach, you would need to change the name of the division back, to its original state. Could you please see your way to doing that? --Rskp (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quoting from my post above "...For better or worse the article as it stands now reflects the current consensus on the name of the division, so changing back to the opposite would now seem contrary to that." Long story short - no. Really don't see how this is an issue and suggest making any changes in this area is pointless and just likely to result in the resumption of hostilities. I for one do not intend to. That is all I'm going to say on this issue. Happy to discuss something else if you like though. Anotherclown (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

text: As status quo ante bellum is in play, I will be editing it accordingly. --Rskp (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring over ANZAC vs Anzac 

message: Regarding the Australian Light Horse where you changed the Anzac Mounted Division. As it was first mentioned in that fashion, I think its been agreed that as both styles are fairly equally correct, that the original style would be kept. --Rskp (talk) 06:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Gday - re the ANZAC / Anzac issue like AR I'm not particularly wedded to either (and there are definitely arguments in favor of the latter I agree). Currently the consensus at Talk: ANZAC Mounted Division is against moving that article so think it would be wise to just try and forget about the issue in the interests of your own sanity. Reason for the revert is that it seemed to be part of the previous pattern of editing plus the fact that your edit changed the wikilink to a name other than that used by the article. I am quite happy with either being adopted as long as its consistent within the article, doesn't break any wikilinks, and is true to the original style adopted by the article (i.e. we don't go and make changes to the format in any article as it currently stands) unless community consensus changes. Anotherclown (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that Anotherclown. Will you be changing the article back, to reflect its original style? --Rskp (talk) 22:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello again. I'm not sure I see any benefit in doing that. For better or worse the article as it stands now reflects the current consensus on the name of the division, so changing back to the opposite would now seem contrary to that. Equally, whilst my opinion is that the terms are interchangeable, given the current consensus others may not agree with me. I do think it would be best to let sleeping dogs lie and try and adopt a status quo ante bellum approach by leaving everything the way it is and moving on to more important things. Anotherclown (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, thanks for that. However, in order to follow the status quo ante bellum approach, you would need to change the name of the division back, to its original state. Could you please see your way to doing that? --Rskp (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quoting from my post above "...For better or worse the article as it stands now reflects the current consensus on the name of the division, so changing back to the opposite would now seem contrary to that." Long story short - no. Really don't see how this is an issue and suggest making any changes in this area is pointless and just likely to result in the resumption of hostilities. I for one do not intend to. That is all I'm going to say on this issue. Happy to discuss something else if you like though. Anotherclown (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

text: As status quo ante bellum is in play, I will be editing it accordingly. --Rskp (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: status quo ante bellum

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Australian Light Horse. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307013914/http://army.gov.au/~/media/files/our%20future/lwsc%20publications/sp/sp307_mechanising_an_army-james%20c%20morrison.pdf to http://www.army.gov.au/~/media/Files/Our%20future/LWSC%20Publications/SP/sp307_Mechanising_An_Army-James%20C%20Morrison.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: see Australian composer May Summerbelle in reference to the light horse. Too often we learn the band played, but seldom of repertoire and even less an Australian work used at embarkation Tradimus (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: significant music reference

message: As far as I can tell, Hugo Throssell and Leslie Maygar are the only Australian light horsemen 
to receive the VC; perhaps their portraits should be included in the sections on WW1 and the Boer War, respectively? --Goldsztajn (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victoria Cross recipients 

message: Does the word "light" refer to the horse at all?
Or just to the lightness of the armoury?
MBG02 (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Light?