Talk:Gloucestershire Regiment

 =Help improve our long-awaited Wikiproject!=

Untitled
Please join our project to upgrade Gloucestershire-related articles to featured status. Mike | talk  16:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Gloucestershire 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/028Glos.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 06:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Development of this article
Ran out of time before coming even close to finishing this article. Intend to revisit it soon, but there is simply too much material to go into such detail in a single article. My plan is, therefore, to spin out the history of the regiment in WWI to a separate article, and summarise that period in this one. FactotEm (talk) 09:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See Gloucestershire Regiment in World War I
 * Update: content-wise I think this article is pretty much there now. FactotEm (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Well done! Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thx :) FactotEm (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate links
What's the consensus on duplicate linking of the Victoria Cross recipients in this article? They are first linked in the main narrative where their VC-winning actions are described. is now linking them for a second time in the list of recipients that appears at the end of the article. My take is that as a Featured Article this article should comply with MOS, and specifically MOS:DUPLINK, which says not to duplicate links in this way. Factotem (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We only need one link.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * One only. Keith-264 (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * One only. Mztourist (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The MOS does say a link may be repeated in a table so I think it may be acceptable here given the list is a pseudo-table. The list is helpful for the reader since it centralises the VC recipients in one place and they don't have to review all the campaign history to find the soldiers. Zawed (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

On a straight headcount the !vote is 4:2 against the duplicate links, a position further strengthened by the the MOS, which is also against them, so I'm removing them. Please do not add them back in without seeking consensus for it. Thanks all. Factotem (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)