Talk:Yeomanry Cavalry

message: Bold textAnyone out there know where the Queen’s Own Royal Glasgow and Lower Ward of Lanarkshire Yeomanry Cavalry  fit into all this? Thanks, ::Supergolden:: 12:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Who is the "warden of the yeomanry" (from the article on Praise-God Barebone)? --CopperKettle 00:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Warden

message: The text on April 12, 2012 reads: "The word 'yeoman' refers to small farmers who owned the land they cultivated as opposed to peasants, but the officers were drawn from the nobility or the landed gentry, and many of the men were their tenants." Assuming "men" in the sentence refers to yeomen, how could yeomen own the land they cultivate yet be tenants of the gentry? The sentence is confusing to the reader. I thought a knowledgeable editor could make the sentence clearer.04:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see recat sentence; does this help? S a g a  C i t y (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Question?

message: I think this article suffers from an identity crisis:
* The first line indicates the subject to be about a British Army unit;
* The majority of the article discusses the Yeomanry Cavalry as a whole, which existed as a distinct entity from 1794 until its incorporation into the Territorial Force in 1908;
* the final sections return to the theme of individual British Army units, which by history and name maintain the yeomanry heritage, representing more a collective term rather than the now defunct entity.
I've already started work on expanding the article, and plan to restrict the subject to the "Yeomanry Cavalry" that existed between 1794 and 1908 (including the period 1901-1908 when it was known as the Imperial Yeomanry). The implication is that post-1908 details will be covered in summary form only in an aftermath section, and I think that in due course the lists of surviving yeomanry units might be better moved out to a separate list article. Inviting comments on this from anyone who wants to weigh in on the subject. Factotem (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. There are three significant dates for the yeomanry in the early 20th century: 1901, when it became the Imperial Yeomanry; 1908, when it became part of the Territorial Force; and 1921, when it went through amalgamation/disbandment/diversification of role. I've covered the last of these with a paragraph in the "Heritage" section, and there's certainly room for improvement and expansion there, but my feeling is that that is better handled in detail in the general yeomanry article. Arguably, 1901 is an appropriate end-point for the "Yeomanry Cavalry", as that is when they lost the cavalry title, as well as the formal role as mounted police, but they resisted the change to mounted infantry with some success, and remained a discrete institution. Incorporation into the Territorial Force in 1908 is, I think, the best end-point, because that separation of institutions ended and they were lumped in with the volunteers, administered by the same County Territorial Associations in an entirely new, unified auxiliary, and formally relinquished its constabulary role. Another concern is the size of the article, which is already approaching the point where Wikipedia starts recommending splitting off, and any extension into the First World War will introduce the requirement for a significant narrative covering yeomanry actions in that conflict. This already has its own article at British yeomanry during the First World War which, at 15Kb of readable prose, and arguably requiring more to bring it up to scratch, would push this article beyond an acceptable size. Factotem (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have no problem at all with a separate article (or articles) covering the Yeomanry Cavalry period in detail, retaining this article as a general history from formation up to the present day. Congratulations on all your good work so far. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a week now, and there does not appear to be any opposition to this, so I will go ahead and ask an admin to move my edits to the "Yeomanry Cavalry" page and revert this article back to how it was before I started. Factotem (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The page move and revert of the original Yeomanry article to its original state was requested on 22 February 2018 and completed the next day. A technical glitch appears to have messed up the page history, though. Factotem (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article scope? 

message: Although the page move request below is not appropriate, I do believe that separate articles for "Yeomanry" and "Yeomanry Cavalry" are justified. The former would be a general history from formation to modern day, and the latter specific to the period from formation to 1908 when it was a discrete institution. To accomplish this I plan to revert this article back to how it was before I started editing it, and move my own edits to the existing "Yeomanry Cavalry" disambig page. I am aware that this will need the page history and the current peer review to be moved, and will seek the help of an admin to do this. Inviting comments here. Factotem (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. There are three significant dates for the yeomanry in the early 20th century: 1901, when it became the Imperial Yeomanry; 1908, when it became part of the Territorial Force; and 1921, when it went through amalgamation/disbandment/diversification of role. I've covered the last of these with a paragraph in the "Heritage" section, and there's certainly room for improvement and expansion there, but my feeling is that that is better handled in detail in the general yeomanry article. Arguably, 1901 is an appropriate end-point for the "Yeomanry Cavalry", as that is when they lost the cavalry title, as well as the formal role as mounted police, but they resisted the change to mounted infantry with some success, and remained a discrete institution. Incorporation into the Territorial Force in 1908 is, I think, the best end-point, because that separation of institutions ended and they were lumped in with the volunteers, administered by the same County Territorial Associations in an entirely new, unified auxiliary, and formally relinquished its constabulary role. Another concern is the size of the article, which is already approaching the point where Wikipedia starts recommending splitting off, and any extension into the First World War will introduce the requirement for a significant narrative covering yeomanry actions in that conflict. This already has its own article at British yeomanry during the First World War which, at 15Kb of readable prose, and arguably requiring more to bring it up to scratch, would push this article beyond an acceptable size. Factotem (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have no problem at all with a separate article (or articles) covering the Yeomanry Cavalry period in detail, retaining this article as a general history from formation up to the present day. Congratulations on all your good work so far. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a week now, and there does not appear to be any opposition to this, so I will go ahead and ask an admin to move my edits to the "Yeomanry Cavalry" page and revert this article back to how it was before I started. Factotem (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The page move and revert of the original Yeomanry article to its original state was requested on 22 February 2018 and completed the next day. A technical glitch appears to have messed up the page history, though. Factotem (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Page split

message: Cite 11 has a CS1 warning (original url defunct I think)  this might help. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads up. That cite references regiments.org via the web archive. The cite code included the parameter deadurl=unfit. That parameter is intended to flag "original urls that point to live sites that are inappropriate: spam, advertising, porn, etc" The URL regiments.org is currently none of these, rendering the 'unfit' parameter false, so I just removed it. Factotem (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations