Talk:Bengal Native Infantry

Coren bot

I believe that Coren Bot has been tripped by the list of regiments, this is to be expected I suppose. It is not copyright infringment, it is a list of regiments, there is no other way of expressing it. Woody (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Improved lists of regiments

I've re-done the list of regiments, adding information that was previously absent from the page. If anyone has any suggestions for improving the list (given the limited space) I'd love to hear them Exemplo347 (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I have added a second list of regiments with their post-1861 titles. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Red Links

The Pre-1857 list of Bengal Native Infantry Regiments contains a large number of red links. As per WP:REDDEAL these are intentional links to pages that could plausibly be created - each Bengal Native Infantry Regiment meets the notability guidelines laid out in WP:MILUNIT. WP:REDDEAL also states that valid Red Links should not be dealt with by removing the link brackets.

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was a unanimous consensus to Merge Exemplo347 (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

---

I propose merging the page "Bengal Regiment" into "Bengal Native Infantry" for the following reasons:

• The title "Bengal Regiment" and the first sentence in the article appear to be the result of some confusion. There was never a "Bengal Regiment" according to The Quarterly Army List of Her Majesty's British Forces on the Bengal Establishment (1859).

• The second and third sentences partially describe the history of the Bengal Native Infantry.

• The second paragraph also describes part of the history of the Bengal Native Infantry.

• The mixture of information about a non-existent regiment and information about the Bengal Native Infantry may mislead readers.

I am aware that the article entitled Bengal Regiment has been present on Wikipedia for a number of years and attracts more page visits than Bengal Native Infantry. This does not, however, excuse the fact that the article is inaccurate in every detail from its title onwards. Therefore I propose that these two pages should be merged as described with inaccurate content removed and Bengal Regiment possibly becoming a redirect page linking to Bengal Native Infantry. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

G'day, this proposal makes sense to me. I have no objections. One suggestion I have also is to clarify on this article when the Bengal Native Infantry ceased to exist. For instance were they reorganized again after 1861? It seems like there are no successor units in the current Indian Army, so that should probably be mentioned also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions AustralianRupert, I have made alterations to the article. As for referencing, I am unsure if my lists require in-line citations - I think the reference list would become far too unwieldy if each entry in the list was cited.Exemplo347 (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

G'day, thanks for adding this information in. Ideally, I think the information about the perpetuation of the BNI should also be added to the body of the article. I'd suggest just adding a little bit more to the post 1861 section, and then adding a "Perpetuation" section. Regarding citations, yes WP:V requires citations for lists too. There are a couple of different ways of doing it, though, so it doesn't become too cluttered. For instance, if a single ref covers everything in a column or a row, you could just add it to the top of the column, or to the final row. You might get some ideas if you have a look at some of the lists here Category:BL-Class military history articles. For instance, this list might give you a format that might be suitable: List of Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients. Anyway, good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I support the merge suggested. A site such as http://www.britishempire.co.uk (granted, perhaps not an RS) makes a clear enough case that the Bengal Native Infantry was divided into regiments; and a flick through some google books of the time finds references to 'the Bengal Regiment' but normally in contexts which suggest these were the Bengali troops which happened to be deployed in this or that circumstance, rather than the formal name. So yes, merge away, please. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge - It appears as if to me that their is a clear consensus to merge. 62.64.152.154 (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2016 (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.

Article issues

I shortened a link and was in the process of explaining the reasoning on the talk page, that I reflected in the edit summary, when it was reverted by Exemplo347. The first reasoning is that most readers may be ignorant (being a lack of knowledge) of certain aspects of a subject and use an encyclopedia to gain knowledge thus becoming less ignorant. It is my opinion that "most" readers will not be suffering from any form of Alzheimer so the many multiple relisting of the long name in a list, that has already been identified in the section heading such as "Pre-1857 list of Bengal Native Infantry Regiments" is unwarranted and unnecessary.

What we end up with is a listing of more than 70 times the use of Bengal Native Infantry Regiments then another long list, in the section "Post-1861 list of Bengal Native Infantry Regiments" with about another 50 listings of Bengal Native Infantry Regiments. I realize that apparently the use of Bengal Native Infantry Regiments more than 100 times on the same page, following a title that includes Bengal Native Infantry Regiments is super important to Mr. Exemplo347, because he jumped on and reverting the edit, but I would hope that he would look at things from the perspective that 100 times redundant is very possibly the definition if redundant. By-the way, the definition of "redundant" would be able to be omitted without loss of meaning or function. If, @Exemplo347: would be so kind as to take this into consideration I strongly believe he might conclude the same findings that leaving out Bengal Native Infantry Regiments would not change anything as any reasonable reader would surely know, without a doubt, that under a heading Pre-1857 list of Bengal Native Infantry Regiments a listing of 1st Regiment of Bengal Native Infantry could be shortened to 1st Regiment, 3rd Regiment, etc.., without all the redundancy. It would also make the page look better considering we have an article that by proxy becomes an actual list article.

I would like to add that I had some more ideas concerning edits, that might include an addition column and fixing what is already there, that could add cohesion but it seems to be all under control. The 2nd column, Status after the Mutiny list such things as "Mutinied at Cawnpore" which is confusing. Was there a second mutiny? Was that the actual "status" or was there some final disposition that could be better presented? Should the section The Mutiny and its aftermath be placed above this section so we are not introducing unexplained material that one has to wonder about until reading the next section?

I hope I sufficiently explained the reasoning for the reverted edit, thank you. Otr500 (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I have made edits to the article that includes information you appear to be requesting. I would be particularly interested to see how uniformity within the lists can be maintained (given that the full regimental titles do not all end simply with "Bengal Native Infantry" - the 38th Regiment of Bengal Native Light Infantry (Bengal Volunteers) for example) using the editing style you suggest. If the lists can be simplified in a uniform manner without removing any factual information then I look forward to seeing it. Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT, particularly the small section on article appearance - inclusion of factual information is more important than a personal point of view about the way the article looks. Please see List of Regiments of Foot for an example of another similar list of military units that includes full titles - the phrase "regiment of foot" appears hundreds of times within this article with no complaints about redundancy. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Greetings; You throwing in Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT is somewhat childish, considering my substantial reasoning that you can argue against if you like, but that doesn't make my opinion any less important nor accurate than yours, and is like shooting at your own feet. I can not understand what issues you deem are present with making content look better, less cluttered, and less redundant.

It is not "I don't like it" but common sense. Shortening a link does not "take anything away from the content. There are many uses for piped links which would be sentence flow, making content look better, and points to the intended link and not somewhere else anyway.

The above example would appear as [[38th Regiment of Bengal Native Light Infantry (Bengal Volunteers)|'''38th Regiment''']] and (Bengal Volunteers) could be added if desirable. Why do you deem that a problem? There can be no argument that anyone would ever be confused because there was a group of 100 plus redundant words left out. That is a fact whereas the list itself, with the confusing content, is questionable.

There are piped links right in the list we are discussing, some justifiably to longer titles, some to shorter titles, and none removing any factual information:

• "21st Regiment of Bengal Native Infantry", is actually the 1st Brahmans,

• "31st Regiment of Bengal Native (Light) Infantry" is actually the 2nd Queen Victoria's Own Rajput Light Infantry,

• "32nd Regiment of Bengal Native Infantry" is actually the 3rd Brahmans.

• "33rd Regiment of Bengal Native Infantry" is actually the 4th Prince Albert Victor's Rajputs

There are more but the point is that it did not hurt anything to reflect a different name than the actual article title. In List of regiments of the Indian Army (1922)#Infantry it lists:

• "6th Gurkha Rifles" that is actually 6th Queen Elizabeth's Own Gurkha Rifles,

• "7th Gurkha Rifles" that is actually 7th Duke of Edinburgh's Own Gurkha Rifles and,

• "10th Gurkha Rifles" that is actually 10th Princess Mary's Own Gurkha Rifles.

The example you gave above, shows using shortened piped links in the table of contents but the section List of regiments of foot, is far more complete, has substance separating the names that doesn't make it appear to be just a long list of redundant words, and that list has a conclusion. This is far more desirable than the above mentioned table heading of Status after the Mutiny with content "Mutinied at Cawnpore", that is still confusing, and you failed to give a response regarding. Since I am having so much trouble explaining the obvious, and not getting satisfactory answers, I will just place appropriate tags and let you make the edits. Have a nice day. Otr500 (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears that the examples you have given unwittingly prove my point, not yours. The "shortened" names here:

• "6th Gurkha Rifles" that is actually 6th Queen Elizabeth's Own Gurkha Rifles

• "7th Gurkha Rifles" that is actually 7th Duke of Edinburgh's Own Gurkha Rifles

• "10th Gurkha Rifles" that is actually 10th Princess Mary's Own Gurkha Rifles

are actually not shortened at all. They are the full title on the date the list refers to, as are the entries in these lists. If you click on the articles and read them you will see that (for example) the 6th Gurkha Rifles was actually called the 6th Gurkha Rifles in 1922. I hope this finally resolves the naming issue for you. The names given on each of the examples are not shortened for expediency or removal of redundancy or they would doubtless have been reverted for reasons of accuracy - they are the full regimental titles at the time the list refers to, as are the ones in this article. As for these examples you have also listed:

• "21st Regiment of Bengal Native Infantry", is actually the 1st Brahmans,

• "31st Regiment of Bengal Native (Light) Infantry" is actually the 2nd Queen Victoria's Own Rajput Light Infantry,

• "32nd Regiment of Bengal Native Infantry" is actually the 3rd Brahmans.

• "33rd Regiment of Bengal Native Infantry" is actually the 4th Prince Albert Victor's Rajputs

They link to existing articles that state within them that they were named as described at the time referred to in this list. As an aside, cutting out the ad hominem and phrases such as "It is my opinion that "most" readers will not be suffering from any form of Alzheimer" may make your arguments seem more plausible. Exemplo347 (talk) 06:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bengal Native Infantry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eddie891 (talk · contribs) 12:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll be starting soon. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Per MOS:CAPFRAG, "If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, then all sentences, and any sentence fragments, in that caption should end with a period."
• I'd like some background on what the mutiny was in the article.
• " Two regiments of BNI were serving in China at the time of the outbreak and remained unaffected." needs source
• I feel like much more information is and context is needed about wartime service. feel free to convince me otherwise, but for now, it does not seem to be comprehensive.
• Sorry. This has dragged on. Perhaps close, but issues were not resolved. Failing soon. You have a week, Exemplo347 Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

The following discussion 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.

---

I propose merging 3rd Regiment of Bengal Native Infantry into Bengal Native Infantry. I think the content in 3rd Regiment of Bengal Native Infantry can easily be explained in the context of Bengal Native Infantry, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Bengal Native Infantry. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Regiments are inherently notable by Wikipedia's standards. Secondly, merging one Regiment's article will mean merging every other BNI Regiment's article into this one, leaving it extremely long and unwieldy.

Exemplo347 (talk) 08:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This discussion clearly has no consensus and the initiator of this discussion hasn't bothered to respond. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll close the discussion as I see your point. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2023 (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.