User talk:2001:558:6017:107:1C04:5322:EA42:C55E

Names of regiments
Hi - Please please don't change the names of regiments from those in use at the time. Regiments were not numbered until around 1757 and were not identified with counties until around 1811. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment on the historical naming of regiments, such as it was. The problem I was trying to correct is that the historical naming is, in the context of a series of succession boxes, meaningless and confusing to the non-expert.  Let us remember that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide a meaningful summary of a subject for the benefit of non-experts.  The fundamental problem is this:  Let's say that John Smith was given charge of 5 different regiments, in the course of time.  In your historically accurate naming scheme, all five would be titled "Smith's Regiment of Foot" ... with no clear distinction between them.  There needs to be a way to distinguish between them.  Certainly, the numbered naming scheme is much more useful in that regard.  Given that on John Smith's page, the fact that John Smith was in charge of the regiment is a safe assumption, and calling the regiment "Smith's Regiment" is absurdly obvious, and provides no meaningful information.  Perhaps a compromise is possible ... using the modern designation in parentheses.  Ex: "Smith's (1st) Regiment of Foot"  This way, the distinction between the various regiments is apparent, but we're not trying to say the historically accurate name was "1st Regiment of Foot" before numbering was adopted.  Would that be acceptable?

2001:558:6017:107:1C04:5322:EA42:C55E (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are proposing but it is what we usually refer to as an "anachronism". i.e. we need to ensure that the information is accurate for the time. If we take Thomas Stanwix, the history books will tell us that he commanded "Stanwix's Regiment of Foot" but if correctly linked using wikilinks it will link through to the Suffolk Regiment anyway. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, but if Stanwix had charge of three different regiments over time, all would be called Stanwix's Regiment, and the distinction between them would be lost. When you're trying to click through a chain of succession boxes, there needs to be a way to identify which of the boxes is the one you're trying to follow.  Yes, the modern name is anachronistic, but so is Wikipedia.  It did not exist at the time, so I guess if we're to be historically accurate, we cannot use it to discuss historical subjects.  What I'm proposing is a small concession to the practical realities of Wikipedia, while trying to recognize your concern.  I am not saying we should use the hybrid naming in the text of the article, were explanation can be provided, but solely within succession boxes, where their concise nature makes such discussion impossible.  It seems to be a small concession to make to improve the usability of the encyclopedia as a whole.  Is that not the point??  2001:558:6017:107:1C04:5322:EA42:C55E (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Again, I understand what you are proposing but all I can do is repeat myself that what you are proposing is anachronistic and therefore unlikely to find favour. In any case it would not be for me to decide: this would effect all 135 regiments of foot and would need quite a programme to change what is our accepted practice across so many articles. Dormskirk (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Please understand, this need not be an extremist all or nothing solution. I am not interested in the British military per se.  My scope is governors of Nova Scotia, and given that several of them had military careers which involved multiple regiments, I'm only seeking a solution to my needs without offending yours.  There are countless situations where strictly "historically correct" names are a problem, and modern solutions are often necessary to resolve those problems.  I am trying to compromise with you to find a mutually acceptable solution.  Let me give you another situation to illustrate my point.
 * Charles Morris was the son of Charles Morris. His son, Charles Morris, was the father of Charles Morris.  This went on for at least six generations, possibly more.  Clearly we need a way to distinguish between all these Charles Morrises.  None of them had a middle name.  We cannot use Sr. or Jr. because when one Sr. dies, and another Jr. is born, the titles switch generations.  We cannot number them, as it is uncertain which Charles Morris was the "first".  Records are incomplete and unclear.  "Historically accurate" names would mean that all of them are both "Charles Morris, Sr." and "Charles Morris, Jr." at different times.  This is actually a very common problem.  Now, if I am to quote a document that names one of these Charles Morrises, I would quote the name used in the document, and then identify which Charles Morris this refers to.  The explanation may not be "historically accurate", but it is necessary to prevent confusion.
 * I believe the modern name in parentheses approach for our particular problem is a perfectly reasonable solution. I am not clear what your objection is other than it is anachronistic.  Succession boxes are, in themselves, anachronistic, as they claim to know who the successor will be, which was impossible to know at the time.  They are not an integral part of the article text.  They are a navigation convenience, and are part of Wikipedia's infrastructure.  As I said, Wikipedia itself is anachronistic, as it did not exist "at the time".
 * Let me try to put it another way. The title of the article Suffolk Regiment is anachronistic.  The fact that the article even exists and has the name it does is a compromise.  If you understand my situation, then why can you not find a workable compromise?  Do you have a better solution that meets both of our needs?  I'm all ears if you have a better solution.  2001:558:6017:107:1C04:5322:EA42:C55E (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As already explained, I am not in a position to agree to a change in accepted practice: it would need the support of the wikipedia community and the Wikipedia History Project Community in particular. I am not sure it would be a priority in the context that it would require a large amount of work across 135 regiments...even if the community agree to it. Dormskirk (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I believe you're overthinking this a bit. We do not need to edit thousands of articles all at the same time.  We can take this one article at a time.  I agree I will not extend my edits beyond my particular scope.  I may have gotten myself a bit ahead of my skis, and I apologize for that.  I was trying to be helpful, and my edits were in good faith.  You rightly informed me of a tiny bit of history I was unaware of.  I thank you for that.  That said, I will limit myself to only articles where our interests collide.
 * Can you agree to an interim solution that will meet both our needs, and that you will not try to editwar me until a broader agreement is achieved? Would you like to propose a forum where the broader should be discussed?  Again, I'm very sincerely trying to work with you.  There is only a very small number of articles where our interests overlap.  Let's try to work together.  Thanks.  2001:558:6017:107:1C04:5322:EA42:C55E (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you should not be making any changes until any change in accepted practice is agreed. Please read WP:BRD. You made a bold edit which I disagree with and it now needs to be discussed: as it is a change with widespread impact it needs to be considered by the community. In terms of a forum, you might consider joining the WikiProject History where proposals which impact a large number of projects can be discussed. It would make no sense to implement this for the 12th Regiment of Foot when there are another 134 regiments to consider. Dormskirk (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good Lord! First of all the page you referred me to states, in the very first sentence, that it "is an optional method of reaching consensus."  It states that "Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia."  It also states that reverts should be made if "it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement".  I believe refinement is possible.  Then it invites us to "Discuss the contribution".  Well, that's what we've been doing.  I understand your concern that the very small issue where our interests collide has a broader impact.  That's fine, I'm open to discussing the broader impact.  In the meantime, we have a very narrow case for which I believe we could seek an interim solution.  The world will not melt if we find a temporary working solution for one narrow case.  You seem to think the page you sent me prohibits us from finding an interim solution.  Actually, the next step states "To avoid bogging down in discussion, (which is where we seem to be at) when you have a better understanding of the reverter's concerns (which I believe we have), you may attempt a new edit that reasonably addresses some aspect of those concerns." I actually proposed to you a possible edit before making it, and sought your cooperation.  The page contines: "You can try this even if the discussion has not reached an explicit conclusion, but be sure you don't engage in any kind of edit warring. "  Clearly, we have not reached a final conclusion, and I'm seeking your agreement to not edit war the issue on the very small number of pages where our interests collide.
 * I actually have no interest in the 12th Regiment of Foot, or any other regiment for that matter, except in the case where one of the people I was working on was also a Colonel of that regiment. I admit that I did go a bit beyond my scope, in good faith, to try to make what I believed to be constructive edits.  I am agreeing not to go beyond my scope, again.  I am simply asking that where your scope and mine collide, that we come to a mutually agreeable interim solution so that we can avoid edit warring each other.  I think that is a reasonable request.  I am asking you to separate the immediate issue from the broader one, and find a reasonable temporary compromise.  I have made my suggestion.  I have asked you for yours.  You seem to be taking an all or nothing stance, which I find is a little extreme, here.  I find it interesting that the page makes the following points:


 * BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.
 * BRD is not mandatory. Neither are editors obliged to start it nor are they obliged to stick to it just because you started it. They may try one of the alternatives given below, or even an alternative not mentioned here.
 * Adhere to Wikiquette and civility guidelines: The easiest way to intensify this cycle and make it unbreakable is to be uncivil. Try to lead by example and keep your partner in the same mindset.
 * It also advises us to "Talk with one or at most two partners at once." You seem to want to take this to a wide discussion with multiple people.  I understand there is a broader issue, and have agreed to discuss the broader issue in an appropriate forum.  As for the immediate issue, I have sought agreement with you.  It advises us to "Be ready to compromise".  I think I have offered to do so multiple times, and sought your own suggestions, which you seem to think is something you cannot do.  I believe the step we are at now is "Let the other editor apply agreed-upon changes" and "Assume this revision will not be the final version."  I'm seeking your consent to do exactly that, not that I am required to do so, but simply out of common courtesy.  The page warns us not to "get stuck on the discussion."  I believe that's exactly where we're at now.  So, I'm ready to proceed.
 * Let me be very clear: I will not edit any pages that are not directly within my scope: governors / lt. governors of Nova Scotia and people directly related to them.  This does include members of the Council and Legislative Assembly, and other officers of government.  Many of these people have also had military service, and that's where your interests and mine meet.  I will not edit pages of military officers outside of that narrow scope.  I admit that I did get outside of my scope, and that my good faith edits were not well received, and I accept that.  I will not make further edits to those pages outside of my scope.  I will, however, proceed with editing pages that are in my scope.
 * As for the broader issue, I do wonder if WP:HISTORY may be a bit over broad. This issue seems to be a rather specific issue concerning the British military in the early 18th century.  After some pro-active investigation on my part, it seems that WikiProject Military history/British military history task force may be the most relevant forum.
 * So, can we come to an interim agreement and proceed in peace? 2001:558:6017:107:1C04:5322:EA42:C55E (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome to make any changes you want to providing they do not introduce historical inaccuracies. Your changes to the Nova Scotia Council appear to be significant improvements to me and, as such are very helpful. Thank you for that. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 10:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)