Talk:Loyal Edmonton Regiment

Images
ComRsch, NORAD/SAC, MilSpec ... here I am evidently incompetent.

Years on WikiPedia; decades on WWW ... which count for nothing. I went Army to interdict Soviets. For years I've felt the need to interdict yuppies ... along with cracKKKers, who are noisier but easier to deal with.

Here's my point: I had 2 images that I think are slight improvements on those that are already on the page. But I got slammed by a totally yuppie / ridiculously legalistic release for the images. (Why I live to support officers? cuz they're really good at some things that are important. Why I rejected commission / sing the praises of Snr NCO? cuz heh ... that's where sanity is!)

http://bentrem.net/75thr/images/LER-Colours.jpg (Very high res)

http://bentrem.net/75thr/images/LER-CapBadge.jpeg (Oh, to have that badge and a green beret!

--BenTrem (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Regimental march
What is the source for "The Hundred Pipers" being a regimental march? The DHH lineage document shows only "Bonnie Dundee". Indefatigable (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The following is all #lateral:


 * The best recording of the traditional version we'd recognize I found: http://bentrem.net/75thr/music/BonnieDundee.mp3


 * Here? This one is older, "old timie" style and with lyrics!: http://bentrem.net/75thr/music/BonnieDundee-JBStuart_Traditional.mp3


 * May I? an anecdote? Remembrance Day (Must have been 1971 cuz I was Cornwallis 1972.)


 * Now fact is I'm born/bred N'n Alberta. So "cold"? We'd ice-fish at -20. (Which is not to diminish our heroes of wars past, I, II, Korea and etc.) But that November day?! When "Order Arms" came heh most of us could not straighten elbows! BUT: as we marched towards the reviewing stand, E along Jasper Ave ... God bless the man, our piper must have sprinted ahead of us through back alleys. As we approach ... Och Aye! Fear no Foe! There it was! (Oh my, I just teared up. Such good memories.)


 * --ben (7208 Cornwallis, 7208 CFSCE Kingston) ==BenTrem (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Data Dump
Removed the following from the main article - nice info, but not formatted for an encyclopedia

===Early history

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Fort Garry Horse which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 23 October 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Loyal Edmonton Regiment (4th Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry) → Loyal Edmonton Regiment – At WP:CFDS, User:Armbrust suggested to rename Category:The Loyal Edmonton Regiment in order to align the category name with the much longer article name. While that is normally standard procedure, we may instead shorten the article name in order to align it with the category name. Afaics there is no ambiguity in using just "Loyal Edmonton Regiment". Marcocapelle (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Makes sense. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 15:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The article covers not only its 1970-present incarnation as 4 Bn, but also the history of the regiment dating back to 1908. 162 etc. (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support The intention had been to address the category title as per Talk:Fort_Garry_Horse and WP:THE but this is also a very reasonable approach.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The current article title is a lot longer and more complex than is actually necessary — the basic rule is to always give pages the simplest title that they can be given without colliding with other topics located at their simplest possible titles, not that we always have to jump to the most technically officialese form — and it would be unnecessarily prolix as the category name as well. Bearcat (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)