Talk:17th Lancers

message: Why is "regiment" done in italics throughout this article? --jpgordon{gab} 16:58, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Italics should be removed. If no one removes them, I'll get round to doing it. SoLando (Talk) 11:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Blah

message: Not sure whether this is a Wikipedia contributor copy/pasting from a source, or the reverse (source using Wikipedia for content); but the entire article appears to be copied/pasted from the 17th Lancers website. An example is the History. JourneySarah (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm almost 100% sure 17thlancers.org took its content from Wikipedia, and not the other way around. One clue is a lonely [17] floating in their version, with no related footnote. They're also missing 1-16, which leads me to believe they copy/pasted and then did an incomplete cleanup of reference numbers. The original version of this article was substantially different from what is here now. If the references were added piecemeal, that's another indicator Wikipedia is the original. Copyvios are usually added in one massive edit. A close review of the history would be necessary to confirm that.  is the resident expert on such things, and could assist further if you ask nicely. :) —<B>Tourchiest</B> talkedits 16:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy/Paste 

message: I happen to have a few photographs from a church at Mhow (Central India) - with brass plates installed by the 17th Lancers, bearing the names of their Officers & Men who died while the regiment was stationed there.
I shall upload them and link them shortly.
Jonathanvarunbenjamin (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mhow 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: A lot seems missing: actions at Camden and Yorktown, return to England. 
The images could be better. Captioning “Irish” dragoons is pointless if there are no distinguishing features.
“nominally re-classification” as lancers needs explanation.
a full revision might be needed. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more work