Talk:Johannesburg Light Horse Regiment

Citation Style
Hi, My edits to the article have just been reverted. and the reason given is WP:CITEVAR. I do not see how that applies as my reading of it is that a mixture of citation styles is contrary to the policy. I went through updating the references so that they were all consistent. How is WP:CITEVAR a reason for that reversion? In addition, I fleshed out a number of the references and added extra information. TWO of the minor changes I made were reapplied after the reversion. I do not wish to start any sort of edit war, but I am unhappy about this and would like to know what explanation there might be? BoonDock (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Using Rp is a major change in style. What are you objection to sfn? -- PBS (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My objection is NOT sfn but rather that there was


 * 1) A mixture of sfn and references
 * 2) The Citation template was mangled by putting bare external references into the page parameter, in clear violation of WP:CITEVAR
 * 3) I fixed a lot of this stuff, sourcing the correct urls and fixing the CS1 mangling. I then went through and made all the citations use a consistent format

I object to the fact that you have mass reverted to the incorrect usage, incorrectly citing a policy which does not support your reasons and in fact which I was working to bring the references in line with. I am tempted to be bold and just revert all the way back to my original changes, but will wait for your response to see if we can gain consensus. BoonDock (talk) 09:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What is incorrect in the current usage?
 * What is incorrect in stating that the introduction of rp into the efn template was not a change in style?
 * "bare external references" which page parameters use bare external references?
 * Try this one as an example: BoonDock (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The temples such as "citation" are designed to allow external references into the page parameters because if one uses a url in a full "citation" one expects the url link to the information about the book eg the title page. Hence the reason why it is better to place the url to a specific page into the page parameter. this is really very common and has nothing to do with style. There is no reason why sfn and   footnotes can not be mixed together if there is no visual change differences between the two (that is not a question of style) -- besides as it now stands there is only one case with   in the entire article so better to convert that one than mass revert. When you made this edit  (Revision as of 15:40, 11 February 2015) did you change anything but the citations? Because the changes it caused in the article makes it difficult to tell. -- PBS (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * page=254 is not a "bare external reference" as bare external reference would be |page=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xC7ktFpFgW4C&lpg=PA255&pg=PA254#v=onepage&q&f=false As I said the templates such as Citation and cite book are both designed to handle the embedding of urls into page numbers. -- PBS (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Try this WP:Citing_sources BoonDock (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also take a look here. Template:Citation and compare to Template:Citation BoonDock (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Now you are referring to an "embedded link" not a "bare external reference" and I think you are misunderstanding what the term means. It is described in Embedded citations as (my bold). The use of embedding links in the body of an articles is not the same thing as embedding links in full citations. I am surprised that someone who has been editing Wikipedia for a long as you have does not know this. I think you are also misunderstanding the wording in Template:Citation see for example Template:Citation chapter url is not needed if your presumption is correct that Template:Citation is all that is needed. -- PBS (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright concerns unfounded
Copyright problems/2015 January 15 copyright concerns unfounded, but there is now a problem with sources. -- PBS (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Two battalions or two regiments?
For its early history some of the sources refer to 1st Imperial Light Horse and the 2nd Imperial Light Horse. Were they two battalions of the Imperial Light Horse or two separate regiments? Is there a authoritative primary or secondary source to confirm which is correct? -- PBS (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Light Horse Regiment Battle of Ellis Park historic marker.png
 * SADF era Light Horse Regiment insignia ver 2.png
 * SANDF Regimental Colours of Light Horse Regiment.png
 * SANDF era Light Horse Regiment Cetenary Coin.png