Talk:Indian Army during World War I

message: Rather than make this page just a list of links, I'd like to expand it to be a brief overview of all Indian Army divisions and independent brigades of WW1, with links to longer articles where appropriate.Yorkist (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: I suggest that the scope of article be expanded to include everything about Indian Army during World War 1 rather than just a list. Currently no such article exists.  
Vinay84 (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what you are looking for is here Indian Army (1895–1947)#First World War  You can of course make a new article Indian Army during World War I.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

text: As I see it , the new article Indian Army during World War I would be draw heavily from what is already there is this article and  Indian Army (1895–1947)#First World War and hence I believe it is a good idea to expand the scope of the current one which is an established article already
Vinay84 (talk) 05:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold instead of the list format there is enough detail here to change it into prose if you want I will help and we could move the article name to Indian Army during World War I. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand Scope 

message: Sumner says that the meerut division joined Force D and not E
--Vinay84 (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Force E created in 1918 looks to be out of sequence with the previous and next Forces which were created in 1914. The 4th and 5th Cavalry Divisions were formed in Palestine from British Yeomanry already in the EEF and British Indian Army units transferred from France. --Rskp (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expedition force D/e 

message: I have added the world war 1 template shown below twice in as many days.Why is it being deleted?
It is present in both British Army during World War I and History of the United Kingdom during World War I articles in which Jim has contributed.
--Vinay84 (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think its needed it need to be redirected to this article at present it goes to British Raj. I am not sure it is as most of the links are already in the article. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern is for people who would also like to see India's participation in the context of the whole thing maybe for example see how Other country armies fared during this period
--Vinay84 (talk) 07:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Link in WWI Campaign box has been fixed with India link now pointing to this page, instead of the The Raj.  I agree that the link to the Raj as part of a set of WWI links was not correct.  Vinay84, can you now reinsert the WWI Campaign Box back into this page?  Farawayman (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: World war 1 template

message: Here are some pointers I came up with looking through the article - call it an informal (and lazy :P) peer review for someone who can't be bothered to do it formally:
*Seriously, the Overseas section with the massive infobox? That's gotta go - it looks awful there, it stretches the screen and that should be turned into prose.  moved to the bottom of the article
*Significant copy-editing for punctuation would be good - some commas that need to be turned into semi-colons or full-stops. Also for prose.
*What's a 'princely state' and shouldn't it be capitalized to some extent?  The Princely states were a nominally sovereign entity of British rule in India that was not directly administered by the British, but rather by an Indian ruler under a form of indirect rule.  I thought I had Capitalised the P but not the S will recheck.
*Siege of Tsingtao and 1915 Mutiny either need to be expanded, or merged into some all-enompassing section that covers both, because they're far too short at the moment. 
*Victoria Cross section. I found it better (and was asked to) on the PIAT article to turn a list of VC winners into a prose section, using their official citations from the London Gazette to write a few sentences on each. 
*Lot of single-sentence paragraphs and short paragraphs that either need to be merged or expanded upon - especially near the beginning and middle of the article. Skinny87 (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some random thoughts 

message: As well as the operations in the Kuki Hills (November 1st 1918 - May 15th 1919), punitive measures were carried out in the same area - but referred to as the Chin Hills - from December 1st 1917 until June 1st 1918. [Report of the Battles Nomenclature Committee]. Earlier punitive operations were undertaken in the Kachin Hills, thru' January and February 1915. [Report of the B.N.C., and London Gazette No. 29652, p. 6699].--FwdObserver (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: North-East Frontier

message: The InfoBox at the start indicates pre-1914 and post-1918 engagements - Would it not be better to only list the colours awarded to the Indian regiments for WWI?  Farawayman (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The info box is for the British Indian Army not just during WWI --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But is the subject of this article not the Indian Army in WWI? Farawayman (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes other articles have the same kind of inf boxs see British Army during World War I its a judgement call does the article look better with or without it ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I certainly believe that it belongs and adds value - my question is whether it should cover the whole era of the British Indian Army, or only the period covered by the article?  If for the period of the article, we would need to adjust the commanders and engagements.  Defining a list of engagements is difficult, because it spills over into minor actions too, thats why colours awarded to the regiments, or divisions could be better.  I also think the current InfoBox type is better and more appropriate than that used in the British Army in WWI. Farawayman (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can we create a separate list/table of engagements in world war 1 instead since that will be used only for this article?--Vinay84 (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And don't forget that things like the Waziristan Campaign do officially count as part fo the WWI period - included in CWGC death totals and so on.  David Underdown (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Engagements

message: There was no Auxiliary Force as such until 1920, when the Auxiliary Force, India, was created from the Indian Defence Force, which was itself created in 1917 from the various Indian Volunteer Corps.--FwdObserver (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two auxiliary forces mentioned in the article , one formed from European volunteers and another from Assam Rifles. So I am guessing your concern is with the latter.--Vinay84 (talk) 06:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Auxiliary Force until 1920 

message: I think it would be a good idea to rename the heading and the relevant text to British-Indian army. Otherwise, a wrong notion the current-day Indian army was involved in the war can creep in. Current day India is a totally different entity with a different national flag, national anthem, and much else.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.250.149 (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Before 1947 there was only the Indian Army, officered by British and Indians and manned by Indians. There is no source anywhere which refers to any such entity as the British Indian Army dating from that time. That name was invented by Wikipedians to avoid the confusion but is a complete POV anachronism. I am going to move this back to the correct article title which uses the term Indian Army. Dabbler (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading is misleading 

message: Gday. I can see this was discussed about 6 years ago but I think there is an issue with the infobox and that it may be time to re-examine the issue. Currently it seems to cover the entire period of the British Indian Army's existence; however, this article is about the organisation during World War I only so in my opinion the infobox should reflect that. Consider - at the moment the infobox includes battles both before and after World War I, whilst none of the notable commanders listed in the infobox commanded it during World War I either. As such I propose changing it to reflect World War I only (my proposed revised infobox would look something like this). Does anyone have any opinions or comments on this issue? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it really need an infobox at all? I personally don't see how it could aid the understanding of the article very much, even if it were changed... —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not opposed to it, infoboxs are fairly standard for units and formations, so I'd think an Army would seem an obvious extension. I guess the infobox I propose is a little light on detail, happy for other information to be added of course. My main concern is that it currently doesn't reflect the topic that's all. FWIW a few similar articles have infoboxs - see Australian Army during World War I and Australian Army during World War II. Anotherclown (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: This article currently states: "In 1914, the Commander–in–Chief was General Sir Beauchamp Duff of the Indian Army,[15] and the Chief of the General Staff was Lieutenant General Sir Percy Lake of the British Army.[16]" I'm no expert on the British Indian Army so this may well be true (it certainly appears to be cited to reliable sources). However, this sentence seems to contradict the wiki articles on these two gentlemen. For instance the article on Beauchamp Duff states that he was "Chief of the General Staff in India from March 1906 to 1909" and that in 1914 he was as ADC General to HM the King (although this point isn't supported with a citation). Equally, the wiki article on Percy Lake states: he was "Chief of the General Staff in India from 1912." Meanwhile, our article on Commander-in-Chief, India states Beauchamp Duff was appointed to the posn in 1914, while Lake isn't even mentioned. The point is that one (or more) of these articles is incorrect. As such is someone with some knowledge of the topic possibly able to review this matter and confirm which is correct? Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Beauchamp Duff was the Chief of the General Staff before he was appointed Commander-in-Chief in India to replace O'Moore Creagh in March 1914, it made a bit of a fuss at the time as the Commander-in-Chief was normally a British Army officer rather Beauchamp Duff who was part of the Indian Army and it was the first time it had been done, Charles Monro took over the post in June 1917. Percy Lake was appointed Chief of the General Staff in India in 1911 until January 1916 when he was replaced by Anderson. Not had a look at the individual articles but it appears that this article is correct. MilborneOne (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Had a look at the two articles but other than adding some minor information they appear to be correct Lake was never Commander in Chief just the Chief of the General Staff in this period. MilborneOne (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gday - thanks for this. I see my error. I agree there is no issue (with this article) - my comprehension skills are another matter though it seems. Anotherclown (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible discrepancy regarding commander 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Indian Army during World War I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090529082359/http://www.1914-1918.net:80/2cavdiv_indian.htm to http://www.1914-1918.net/2cavdiv_indian.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090610032042/http://www.wewerethere.defencedynamics.mod.uk:80/ww1/k_khan.html to http://www.wewerethere.defencedynamics.mod.uk/ww1/k_khan.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090905153609/http://india.gov.in:80/knowindia/indiagate.php to http://india.gov.in/knowindia/indiagate.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Indian Army during World War I. 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/20130509080005/http://www.orbat.com/site/history/historical/india/army1914.html to http://www.orbat.com/site/history/historical/india/army1914.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100618081321/http://www.cwgc.org/admin/files/cwgc_india.pdf to http://www.cwgc.org/admin/files/cwgc_india.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indian Army during World War I. 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/20081010144500/http://orbat.com/site/history/volume5/529/Indian%20Army%20Brigades.pdf to http://orbat.com/site/history/volume5/529/Indian%20Army%20Brigades.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) 03:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Indian Army during World War I. 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/20150524192004/http://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/article1433642.ece?service=print to http://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/article1433642.ece?service=print
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090702131058/http://www.dva.gov.au/news_archive/Documents/090327_GallipoliCampaign.pdf to http://www.dva.gov.au/news_archive/Documents/090327_GallipoliCampaign.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090224083410/http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_570_2005-01-24.html to http://infopedia.nl.sg/articles/SIP_570_2005-01-24.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100820033615/http://national-army-museum.ac.uk/exhibitions/vc/page4-2.shtml to http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/exhibitions/vc/page4-2.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091112103728/http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/exhibitions/vc/ to http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/exhibitions/vc/
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) 01:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Where are the numbers of casualties taken from? No source is cited. Several internet articles cite those numbers but also give no source. The only other numbers I’ve seen are those given by the British Secretary of State for India in 1919 and they’re very different. Also the sentences describing the numbers are confused and don’t make sense: they appear to give two numbers for total deaths.  Djewesbury (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers? 

message: Can someone please give a citation for the size of the Army given in the infobox. By 'size' is it referring to the peak combat strength at some given point in time, or the total who served during the entirety of the Great War. Searching for the figure only leads back to the Wikipedia article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.205.196 (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size