Talk:Duke of Wellington's Regiment

message: I don't follow the logic of blanking the talk page just due to age of the comments.  Common practice seems to be to leave them in place, and archive when the pages gets over-large.  Alai 06:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page comments

message: This article is almost good enough, in terms of content, to be a featured article - see WP:WIAFA for the criteria.  Where is really falls down, at the moment, is references and citations.  Would it be possible to add some more? 
It may help to have a peer review first. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC

message: I have added details about the 6th Batallion and it's poor performance during the 2nd World War, more specifically, during the battle of Normandy.  I will probrably add the full report by the CO of 6 Bn, DWR, when I find "Overlord" by Max Hastings. Tommy!!! 10:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 6th Batallion during World War II

message: The Hook was a geographical feature, and accordingly we refer to it with a capitalised T in 'The'. but not as 'the Hook'. Nitpicking perhaps, but its always better to have these things correct. The sub-heading 'Battle of The Hook' was change to reflect its geographical identity. Brian.Burnell 12:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Hook

message: The person who changed the words "southern Holland" to the southern Netherlands should revert the change without further ado. In English idiom, (and this was an English version of Wiki when I last checked) the term Holland is frequently used to refer to "The Kingdom of the Netherlands" to give that place its full legal title. Here in Wiki we are not producing a legal tome, but a readable reference source, and full legal descriptions are used when necessary, but readability and a good narrative flow are also important. My brother fought with the British Army to liberate the people of France, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg and Germany. He would not (then or now) ever describe his part in this great enterprise as liberating the French Republic, The Kingdom of Belgium, The Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Third Reich. He used the short form in common use then and now, and saved what breath he could for fighting and surviving. Brian.Burnell 16:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The person who corrected this error musn't anything. There is no Roosendaal in southern Holland, period. There is one in the south of the Netherlands (nobody says you should use "The Kingdom of The Netherlands"). Getting the facts right is important. Fnorp 18:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well ....... if getting the facts right is important ... then the language purists should aspire to that also. FACTUALLY SPEAKING .... the correct term is 'The Kingdom of the Netherlands'. But of course most sensible people will agree that some abbreviation is desirable. Pehaps I should also point out that when visiting the supermarket today I purchased some Gouda cheese. It was labelled, as all food products are labelled with its country of origin to comply with EU laws. In this case the label said 'Produced in Holland'. So it seems that the mighty European Commission in Brussels is on this side of the fence in authorizing the term 'Holland'. THe language purists must be feeling a little isolated. Brian.Burnell 03:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Holland

message: Ok, we clearly need to talk about this. In the part about the Battle of Guilford Court House, I changed 
"The British suffered heavy casualties but they defeated the American force, nearly twice their size." to "The British suffered heavy casualties but they forced the American force, nearly twice their size, to retreat." To me, that's more accurate, as the British army was left with a much smaller army, and the battle eventually led to the British defeat in the war. In the Battle of Guilford Court House article, it even says "Seeing this as a classic Pyrrhic victory, British Whig Party leader and war critic Charles James Fox echoed Plutarch's famous words by saying, "Another such victory would ruin the British Army!"" --Awiseman 13:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi;  Sorry to take so long to reply I was rather busy elswhere.  I agree the wording is debatable, according to ones own definition of the Word defeat, also in the perceived action that led up to it, ie with or without a large and sustained battle, according to whose account of the event you read. The account of the fighting in the article Battle of Guilford Court House is not fully accurate in its description, from the history I have read by other editors. I will therefore rewrite the section in the 33rd article and leave the Battle of Guilford Court House alone, thereby allowing a comparison to be made, I do want to research some maps first though.  No doubt one or the other will be perceived as more substantial.  I do however feel that the word defeat is correct at this time.  A bit like a boxer who throws in the towel in the first round is considered to have been defeated, when others may consider it a tactical withdrawal.  So may I suggest we leave it, as is, until I can do the editing? Richard Harvey 14:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fair. I guess it does depend on the definition of defeat. As for the battle, the Park Service website  says the British "tactically defeated" the Americans, and calls it the "high water mark" for the British. So maybe that's the only change we need to do, "defeated" to "tactically defeated." I'd be fine with that. I'd be happy to see what changes you make too though. --Awiseman 15:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Guilford Courthouse wording 

message: Greetings!
I would like to add some information to the photo of the AWI period soldiers of the 33rd Foot. This image is a crop of a larger image taken on 29 July 2001. The original image was taken by Judy Polinsky at the Warner Brothers Ranch in Burbank, California. The original image is copyright 2001 by the 33rd Regiment of Foot, Inc. We are delighted for this image to be used in the Wiki article. The soldiers in the image are (from rear to front) Drum Rct. Matthew McGee, Rct. Thomas Fitzhenry, Pte. James Bradford, and Pte. Jacob Jenks. (Matt Ehrlich, Rick Feingold, Brett Landis, Spencer Deal)For more information on the re-created 33rd Foot, please visit: www.33rdfoot.org
Cheers!
64.236.243.16 18:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  33rd Foot Cornwallis Reenactment Company photo 

message: Changed from company to battalion as this was a battalion deployment.
:During early February The Dukes were doing training in the UK and only fully deployed as a battalion later in the month. I have now clarified that in the main text. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Kosovo deployment

message: Was the 33rd Foot a recipient of the Abyssinia (battle honour)? That article does not list them as receiving it, although it mentions that it was awarded to both Indian & British army units. (If it didn't that would be odd since the 33rd Foot played such an important role, & would need to be explained.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it was awarded to them and is mentioned on page 191 of the JM Brereton and ACS Savoury book 'The History of The Duke of Wellington's Regiment (West Riding) 1702-1992 (). The article On the Battle honour only appears to list the British Indian Army units that received it! Richard Harvey (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle honours 

message: I wish to propose splitting this article. It is already 79 MB long, which is pretty big; also, it is out of step with other articles on British Regiments, which (generally have separate articles on their pre- and post-1881 incarnations. This one has a separate article, and a summary here, for the 76th Regiment of Foot, but has the detail of the 33rd Regiment here. 
I would propose moving much of the content of the "Formation and name" and "33rd Regiment (1702-1881)" sections to their own page, leaving a summary (as for 76th section). The new page would be 33rd (The Duke of Wellington's) Regiment in keeping with other, similar articles.
Opinions? Xyl 54 (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is 79kB long, not 79MB, which is nothing compared to the 164kB article on  Circumcision! Having just merged the former 33rd Regiment of Foot article into this article to correct a considerable amount of incorrect information, within the separate articles I do not believe that splitting the article again would be the best thing to do. It would duplicate a considerable amount of information regarding battles, battle honours, colours, images and history. As the regiment has now itself amalgamated with two other old Yorkshire regiments, to form the Yorkshire Regiment the article is static and unlikely to change. Your suggestion may well require the updating of two or possibly three separate articles, for example when battle article are moved retitled or created. As for the summaries of the 33rd and the 76th, note that the 33rd is the Duke of Wellington's regiment, it having changed its title in 1853, the 76th became its 2nd battalion in 1881, as per the article details. Regiments that are 'split', as foot regiments, before 1881 have generally had a name change at that date, due to being two separate regiments prior to then. The section title "33rd Regiment (1702-1881)" was a bit misdirectional, so I have changed that. Richard Harvey (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for joining this debate a bit late but I support the proposal to split the article as proposed. I agree that it is out of step with other articles on British Regiments which amalgamated with other regiments in 1881 and believe the split should go ahead for that reason. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be confused and think the Duke of Wellington's Regiment did not exist prior to 1881. Obviously you have missed the fact that the 33rd of Foot was renamed as the Duke of Wellington's in 1853, as mentioned above by Richard Harvey and in the articles regimental history. The 76th Regiment of Foot, which became the 2nd Battalion of the Duke of Wellington's in 1881 already has a separate article. The 33rd was in continuous existence from 1702 until it became part of the Yorkshire Regiment in 2006, even then it retained its antecedent regimental name until those were dropped in 2013, though the foot regiments number is still retained. The Colours carried by the Duke of Wellington's Regiment, showing its Battle Honours remain the same. On 18 June 1853 the Adjutant General 'G Brown' sent the following communiqúe to the Regiment " Her Majesty has been Graciously pleased to command that the 33rd Regiment of Foot shall Henceforth, bear the name of 'The 33rd ( or The Duke of Wellington's) Regiment, which Honourable distinction shal be inscribed on the colours of the Regiment". The Regiment was presented with a new set of Colours bearing that inscription on 28 February 1854; and are now laid up in Halifax Minster. There was continuity of Battle Honours on those colours after 1881. There was not a new stand issued, as though a new regiment, with a new set starting for Honours awarded after that date. To therfore arbitrarily cut a regiments history in two would be a retrograde step and a fundamental change to the actual history of the regiment.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.249.164 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not confused and nor have I missed the fact that the 33rd was renamed in 1853; so, with respect, it is you who are mistaken on both those points. My reason for supporting Xyl 54 is that what happened in 1881 was the amalgamation of two regiments (see for example) and not a continuation of one of them. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

text: An excellent reference which supports what I said. Quote " (By a wry turn of fate, in 1881 the 76th amalgamated with the 33rd Foot and acquired the title Duke of Wellington's, the 33rd having held that title since 1853.) " . The inference being that the 76th took on the title of the 33rd, becoming their 2nd Battalion. In addition the 76th Regiment's Colours were replaced with new ones, showing the title 'Duke of Wellington's' on 2 May 1887.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.249.244 (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that is helpful: where did it come from? By the way, while I accept that there was continuity of battle honours on the colours of the DWR after 1881, other new regiments formed by amalgamations e.g. the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry also benefited from continuity of battle honours on their colours (see "DCLI colours: 1915 silk postcard" for example). So continuity of battle honours is not in itself a reason to treat the DWR differently from (say) the DCLI. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies. I now see you are also quoting from Corrigan. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split? 

message: I can't find any references for Brian Curry, Roy Sabine, or Jack Scroby having played rugby league Tests for Great Britain, or England, were they tourists? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the information, I'll try to incorporate it into the players articles. As a true blooded Yorkshiremen myself, no slight was intended by the term 'Tourist', as it refers to a player who has been selected to participate in an overseas tour, e.g. 1910 Great Britain Lions tour of Australia and New Zealand. Not all players selected to tour will necessarily participate in the Test matches, but may participate in matches against clubs, counties, and districts in the country being toured, etc. Would your contact be able to provide forenames for Croft and Schofield? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are Pte Paul Schofield and L/Cpl David Croft. A photo of them can be seen here:- 1962 Dukes team . You may recognise a couple of the other names shown there, as English and Scottish international players:- Mike Campbell-Lamerton, Charlie Renilson, Dennis Shuttleworth (later Brigadier Dennis Shuttleworth OBE). Some of them I knew from my time with the regiment. Something that may be of interest to you, is that Jack Scroby played for Bradford Northern when he was called up for his national service, with the Dukes. Whilst out on patrol, in Londonderry during 1958, he was intercepted by Trevor Foster, who at that time was a club official with Halifax RLFC and signed up for Halifax whilst sitting in a Landrover on the Craigavon Bridge. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rugby league 

message: What purpose is served by two long paragraphs that appear to deal primarily with the Guards division at the battle of the Alma and which do not mention the 33rd at all?
JF42 (talk) 08:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point I've trimmed the section down. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The British forces prevailed in taking the objective. However, " 

message: "The regiment returned to Warley in Yorkshire to rest, recruit and retrain."
You might want to check that location. Warley in Essex was the location of a large military encampment in the later C18th. The area of woods and heathland was used for manoeuvres and royal reviews. See the well-known paintings by P.J. de Loutherbourg from 1778. A number of regiments were sent to there to reform and recuperate after the return from the continent in spring 1795.Jf42x (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 06:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warley 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Duke of Wellington's Regiment. 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/20090203134413/http://army.mod.uk:80/infantry/regiments/10140.aspx to http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/regiments/10140.aspx
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 10:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Duke of Wellington's Regiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.regiments.org/regiments/uk/inf/033DWR.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Duke of Wellington's Regiment. 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/20140203121128/http://www.dwr.org.uk/dwr.php?id=207 to http://www.dwr.org.uk/dwr.php?id=207
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160110025402/http://british-army-units1945on.co.uk/territorial-army-royal-artillery/564-591-regiments.html to http://british-army-units1945on.co.uk/territorial-army-royal-artillery/564-591-regiments.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304030302/http://www.dwr.org.uk/dwr.php?id=308 to http://www.dwr.org.uk/dwr.php?id=308
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090724191244/http://www.calderdale.gov.uk:80/leisure/museums-galleries/duke-wellington/index.html to http://www.calderdale.gov.uk/leisure/museums-galleries/duke-wellington/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150829181242/https://british-army-units1945on.co.uk:80/ to http://british-army-units1945on.co.uk
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140806195614/http://www.ra39-45.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk:80/index.html to http://www.ra39-45.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/index.html
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) 14:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Duke of Wellington's Regiment. 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/20110724041849/http://www.dwr.org.uk/dwr.php?id=70&pa=207 to http://www.dwr.org.uk/dwr.php?id=70&pa=207
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090107190630/http://www.ra39-45.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sl/page23.html to http://www.ra39-45.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sl/page23.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121023095654/http://www.ra39-45.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/garrison/index.html to http://www.ra39-45.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/garrison/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304101322/http://www.ra39-45.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/infantry/index.html to http://www.ra39-45.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/infantry/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203080152/http://www.dwr.org.uk/dwr.php?id=55 to http://www.dwr.org.uk/dwr.php?id=55
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.calderdale.gov.uk/leisure/museums-galleries/duke-wellington/index.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://british-army-units1945on.co.uk/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ra39-45.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/index.html
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) 16:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The 1/4th, 1/5th, 1/6th and 1/7th battalions...
:Does this mean 1st/4th etc? I don't see how the 1st battalion can be merged with more than one other battalion. Valetude (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that mergers were not involved. This was the first line of battalions: 1/1st, 1/2nd, 1/3rd, 1/4th etc. As the demand for more troops increased, a second line was raised: 2/1st, 2/2nd, 2/3rd etc. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbering of battalions