Talk:The Grey and Simcoe Foresters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): Canadian military history task force

Snipped from the village pump

[edit] Military units claiming an Alliance

I hope that the experience of others can provide me with some direction as I have searched several times and found no definitive answers.

I have been working on the Canadian Military unit The Grey and Simcoe Foresters. And, as with all Military unit pages, there is a heading of Alliances. This heading is what is confusing to me. Many Military units claim a Alliance with other Military units (and some rightly so), but I can find no reference sources for this type of claim in many cases. This is especially so for the case of a Forester unit (as there is only 1 other in the world that shares the Forester designation ... that being The Sherwood Foresters ). I don't want to add any additional implication of a link between the Units beyond their names by listing an Alliance.

Is it fair enough to simply remove the heading ?
Is there a reference source that I (non-military type that I am) am overlooking/missing ?
Is there a source where I might find info about the headings on Military units pages ?
exit2dos2000 11:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It is completely acceptable to leave out a section if you have nothing to add to it. Someone who knows more can always add things later. If you want to investigate further, the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, especially in their Canadian military history task force, are probably your best bet. (If you work on Canadian military units with any sort of regularity, you may just want to join as a participant.) - BanyanTree 17:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's the Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters now, and they do indeed claim a regimental affiliation per regiments.org. (You may find that site useful) Shimgray | talk | 01:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

End snip

Thanks Shimgray ... Thats the reference I was overlooking
exit2dos2000 09:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References Please

I'm not sure I agree with the "Alliances" having a listing with the UK Foresters. Unless an actual reference to a formal "Alliance" can be shown or linked too, I feel that it is enough to just mention a similarity between the units. The term "Alliance" has another meaning in this context that I have never heard of existing between the 2 Forester units.

exit2dos2000 12:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barreness of Grey and Simcoe Foresters entry

Not sure about the "public Domain"ness of the information, even though most of it is historical.

This round of Editing got only information from the WWW site into Wiki. More is to be forthcomming from several enlistment and informational pamphlets I picked up as well as conversations with "Specialists".

exit2dos2000 05:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)