User talk:Ryecatcher773
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Saw nothing
Talk:Arsenal_F.C.#Pogues_mention SLUMGUM yap stalk 19:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Awaiting a verdict on the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment article
Actually, it means that I'm the project's most glorified paper-pusher; but we'll just ignore that point. ;-)
I have no problems with moving it to the official name of the unit; you may want to insert a footnote into the article after the name to indicate that it is, in fact, the correct order, so that future editors don't feel compelled to fix it. Personally, I think we should expand out the abbreviation (3rd United States Infantry Regiment), but I'll leave that up to your discretion. In the long term, I think we're going to have to try and come up with some actually usable guideline for how to name these articles, reconciling the use of official names with a sensible placement of "United States" when it's inserted for disambiguation purposes; but that's a rather broader issue. Kirill Lokshin 02:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- Congrats on winning the war against inaccuracy! I'd been following the ongoing battle over the 3d U.S. Infantry Regiment for months, but it always raised my blood pressure too much and I figured I'd wind up saying something that would get me banned, so I tried to stay away from it. Props to you for sticking with it until a correct consensus was reached. --ScreaminEagle 16:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, hopefully this title will prevail... it is Wikipedia, so it's not set in stone. I just wish that people could understand how important this stuff is to those of us who served, you know? Some people get so caught up in standards and formats that they don't want to look at things on a case-by-case basis. And then, these same people don't even bother to read explanations as to why things are this way, no matter how detailed those explanations may be. Thanks for the vote of confidence though, and thanks for your support on the discussion page too. Ryecatcher773 17:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Battle of Fallen Timbers
I have a question about this article and I was wondering if you had the answer. I've been going through and correcting the redirects/dabs for the 3d US Infantry to reflect the correct name and new correct article title. I came across this article and I'm afraid I don't know enough about that time period to make an accurate decision about the name inside the unit box. I'm assuming that 3d Infantry Regiment is the 3d U.S. Infantry Regiment (if not, then we have to find which regiment they're talking about and redirect it there) since it was in existence back then of course, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate to change the name to reflect the U.S. portion of the name. When did the 3d add the U.S. to its name? Was it during the Civil War or was it there from the beginning? If it didn't change until later, I'm tempted to leave the name in that article as is to reflect the name of the unit at that time. What are your thoughts? --ScreaminEagle 17:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- So far as I know, The Old Guard was still the 1st Regiment in 1794... which is to say that it wasn't the 3rd US Infantry yet... or even the 3rd Infantry. I know that the battle was fought in what is now part of Ohio, and that it seems likely that it was a militia regiment from somewhere near or garrisoned in the Northwest Territories would have supplied this particular occurrence of '3rd Regt.'. Sorry I can't be of more help, but I will look further and see if I can come back with a more substantial answer. Ryecatcher773 00:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ohio State Buckeyes football
Recently this article received a "peer review script" examination and mention was made of GA and FA status (Talk: Ohio State Buckeyes football). I invite you to help complete the article and with a little luck and hard work maybe someone will take notice and nominate it for FA (I am not into self-nom for reasons your own "statement of purpose" makes clear). Even if that doesn't happen, the quality of the article itself will improve and make it a showcase for Buckeye football. The history from 1975 to the present is lacking, and in particular we need enthusiastic but encyclopedic writers for the Cooper and Tressl eras. Ultimately I think the History of Ohio State Football will become a main article in its own right. My goal is to get the article "completed" (but far from "finished") by January 8. If you can help, please do, and GO BUCKS. --Buckboard 06:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
