Talk:1st Green Jackets (43rd and 52nd)

1st Green Jackets (43rd and 52nd) should not be redirected to Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry
The 1st Green Jackets (43rd and 52nd) should have its own page. Regiment existed from 1958 to 1966. Details of this period now removed from Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire light infantry page (former regiment) and also not on Royal Green Jackets page. Charlie52 (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Should have" yes. Are you going to create it then?  Hamish59 (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, should it? Is it not the same unit under a different designation?  Hamish59 (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes.Have expanded article. Decision has been made not to include 1st GJ 43/52nd in Oxf and Bucks L.I. page and 1st GJ history been deleted from it and its not included in Royal Green Jackets page.Can the redirection be removed? Thanks for your interest in this. Charlie52 (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What you have written so far is not very good. It has no citations, no structure, it is a wall of text, etc.  I suspect it will be speedily deleted.  I am not convinced that this is distinct from OBLI.  Hamish59 (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on 1st Green Jackets (43rd and 52nd). 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:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.regiments.org/regiments/uk/inf/043OBLI.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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Too much detail
An editor has suggested that this article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail. I agree that it is getting too long. But I do not think material should be spun off: the material is in itself too intricate to be of interest to the average reader. Instead I suggest that User:Charlie52, who has done most of the work on the article, culls it a bit. Dormskirk (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Article has now been considerably reduced in size. Charlie52 (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Great. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)