User talk:Alexmb
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome
Hello, Alexmb, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
Sorry for the delayed welcome. Thanks for your contribs on the British Military. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Royal Scots Dragoon Guards
I really can't understand your objection to RSDG being included. I accept that it is not an official abbreviation (I am fully aware of the peculiarities of the British Army), but it is still the case that it is commonly used - in fact, I have seen it used far more often than ScotsDG, and that's in Army publications as well as civilian/civil service. And if it is used then it is appropriate to include it in the article. I have noted that it's incorrect, but I fail to see your objection to information being included. This is an encyclopaedia, not a propaganda document for official policy of the British Army. Our aim is to provide as much information as possible, not to stick rigidly to official usage and not mention anything unofficial. That would just be ridiculous and would stifle a free flow of knowledge. Unofficial abbreviations and nicknames are included in other articles - why so sensitive about this one? -- Necrothesp 11:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] ScotsDG abbreviation
My primary objection about RSDG is giving it any form of offical status - it is incorrect, and I know that the RSDG abbreviation can be a particular bugbear with members of the regiment.
To be completely honest, I have never given the ScotsDG abbreviation a moment's thought - the regiment are always, and have always been, referred to to as the ScotsDGs, and anyone using RSDG is quickly corrected. I served in the cavalry so, not surprisingly, everyone has always used ScotsDG, with RSDG limited to new REME (etc) attachments, who quickly change, and journalists, who rarely seem to bother to check, for example, a regiment's correct name, the post-nominals for a particular honour, etc. Personally, I think that ScotsDG has so much more character than (the frankly rather bland) RSDG, and is also much easier to say (especially after a couple of beers...), that I cannot see why anyone would want to use anything else!
But actually looking at it now, it is an anomaly - the abbreviated version of virtually every other regiment is simply it's initials possibly preceded by it's number. I think this anomaly, like every other in the Army, should be highlighted - why is it ScotsDG and not RSDG??
I have e-mailed several ScotsDG friends and will see if they can shed any light on it. In the meantime, until we have an explanation that can be included, I am happy to leave the current wording, which makes clear that RSDG is incorrect.
Best wishes
alexmb
- It does also seem rather odd to miss off the abbreviation for the royal prefix, which regiments are usually rather proud of. We both know how idiosyncratic regiments can be, but it's odd nonetheless. -- Necrothesp 22:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] SCOTS DG
What a saga this has turned out to be!! It turns out that the ScotsDG abbreviation is also incorrect(!), and that the official abbreviation is SCOTS DG (all capitals with a space). I ended up talking to the SCOTS DG's Regimental Secretary, who stated that 'it is a matter that raises much difficulty at Home HQ and sometimes with the Regiment in Germany'. He does not know why this abbreviation was used, and is thus going to make it an Archive question - 'a good task for someone'...!! I have put this all into a new section otherwise it will dominate the initial overview paragraph.
[edit] Order of the Bath
'The Order ranks sixth in the British Orders of Chivalry, after The Most Noble Order of the Garter, The Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, The Most Illustrious Order of St Patrick (now in disuse), The Order of Merit, and The Order of the Companions of Honour.' I cannot find a source confirming your rankings; on the contrary, as I noted more than a week ago on the relevant talk page, the Cabinet Office ( http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/ceremonial/honours/chivalry.asp ) and the Select Committee on Public Administration of the House of Commons ( http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmpubadm/212/21204.htm#a3 ) both provide the tables of the British orders, in which the Order of Merit is placed after the Order of the Bath, and the Order of the Companions of Honour -- after the Order of the British Empire. Mapple 04:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually your two links don't agree: the first shows: Garter, Thistle, Merit, Victorian, Bath, Michael & George, etc. The table at the bottom doesn't include Knight Batchelor, so cannot be said to be complete.
I can't actually remember where the original list came from, but when the New Years Honours are published, I think they are in a fairly definitive order......
- I referred to the tables, that do agree; the omission of Knight Bachelor is, I think, due to the fact that it is not an order of chivalry by any definition. I also do not think that it is common for OM to be announced in the New Year Honours list. Mapple 16:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The original rankings I think (?) came from the royal family's site. Look at http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page490.asp . I am not going to touch the order you have changed it to until we can find a definitive list - there must be one....??!!
I think I have found a definitve list for precedence (http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/ceremonial/honours/wear.asp). It is for the order in which honours / medals should be worn: Order of Merit : immediately after Knights and Dames Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath [ie: after GCB, but before KCB] Order of the Companions of Honour : immediately after Knights and Dames Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire [ie: before GBE, but before KBE] This could explain the variety of orderings on other sites - including the royal family's. Interestingly, if you look at the London Gazette for the Birthday Honours list for 2005 and the New Years Honours list for 2002, the CH is listed above the order of the British Empire in the former and below in the latter, as the latter list includes a GCB award, but the former does not. see http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/download.asp?docid=857057 and http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/download.asp?docid=532848
- Ah, thank you very much! Indeed, this list seems to be the definitive one. And the Gazette lists are strange -- they commence with Knight Bachelors, who cerainly do not outrank, for example, KCB holders. Mapple 17:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
