Talk:Royal Irish Regiment

No disambiguation page needed
As there are only two articles on the subject there is no need for a disambiguation page. The (1992) article should be moved to this page. It is already dabbed at the top of the page to link to the other article on the former unit that went by this name. Candleabracadabra (talk) 11:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree the as there are only two articles on the subject there is no need for a disambiguation page. I do not agree that the (1992) article should be moved to this page.  Why should it take precedence over the (1684–1922) article?  Hamish59 (talk) 12:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Either way works for me. But the one titled (1992) seems super weird. Reading the articles it seems they are related? So can't they be linked and discussed form one to the other anyway including in the opening paragraphs? Legacy and such. Seems there shouldn't be a problem or confusion once the relation is made clear. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I am afraid not. The two regiments are completely unrelated to each other, other than the fact that they share a name and were / are part of the British Army.  If the articles imply that they were related, then the articles need to be clarified.  The original Regiment was the 18th Regiment of Foot, the current Regiment is descended from the 27th, 83rd, 86th, 87th, 89th and 108th Regiments of Foot (and the UDR).  Hamish59 (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)