Template:Did you know nominations/63 Cavalry


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 20:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

63 Cavalry

 * ... that 63rd Cavalry of the Indian Army was given the epithet of Ghost during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971?
 * Reviewed: Sue Nott. Shifted QPQ to 15th Lancers (Cureton's Multanis). QPQ pending. Nellie Miller-Mann

Created by AshLin (talk). Self nominated at 19:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Hook OK, long enough (2134 B), new enough (created the same day as it was submitted for DYK), two references back up hook claim, one further offline source accepted under AGF. ► Philg88 ◄ ♦talk 08:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg The article is marked as a stub, and cannot run as a DYK while it remains a stub. Also, is there a natural inconsistency is army unit naming, that some units use numerals (63) and some ordinals (5th)? (The Bharat Rakshak source uses both 63 and 63rd.) We should certainly use common name and orthography here. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The article has been upgraded to start class, since it is now a few paragraphs long. As such, this article is unfortunately approaching the limit of verifiable published material on 63 Cavalry. Will add more material If I can find it.
 * The correctness name has been verified from a reference from a ref - . The correct term is 63rd Cavalry. The page has been moved since to that name & DYK hook amended.
 * The reason both terms "63rd Cavalry" and "63 Cavalry"/"63 CAVALRY" appear on Indian military web sites, is because the former is the formal name of the regiment per Army List & the latter is the way it is reflected in military technical writing (referred to in military language, as Minor Staff Duties). AshLin (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Reinstating approval now that issues have been addressed. The article is definitely long enough for DYK, and not a stub. I'd recommend that the page be consistent in use of "63rd Cavalry", now that it has been moved to that article title; the body still has some "63 Cavalry" instances. I've updated this template to reflect the article move (the template itself should not be moved). BlueMoonset (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)