Talk:Household Cavalry

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Household Cavalry article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Military history: British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

Equine Low‑importance

	Horses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Officer ranks broken?

The section on officer ranks seems incomplete and broken. Is that intentional? 2001:9E8:29D0:8500:80E1:2CBD:E8CC:87E3 (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now sorted. Dormskirk (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024 London incident

Re: the removal here as WP:NOTNEWS, I might agree that, for a military organisation dating back to 1660, this event may not have been very notable. But how often does the Household Cavalry make the news? This incident received global media coverage. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It received huge coverage and should be restored. Dormskirk (talk) 09:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now restored. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's WP:UNDUE. There may have been a lot of rather breathless coverage in the media, but it's still only a single incident

More important though is the state of the 'Place in British society" section entirely. It's uncited apart from one very poor source, and is basically of load of OR of very questionable accuracy. 31.218.19.119 (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the source citations for the April 2024 incident can very easily be added to/improved. What does Dormskirk think? But by all means highlight which material you think is unsourced. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't clear - I mean the preceding paragraph in that section, not the bit you added on the London incident 31.218.19.119 (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the first paragraph is very much a series of opinions (e.g. "The two regiments of the Household Cavalry are regarded as the most prestigious in the British Army...") and would be relaxed if that paragraph was removed. Dormskirk (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames in the infobox

While sourced, it seems these are very obscure, and there's nothing supporting their noteworthiness in the article. I don't think nicknames without widespread use and coverage in the actual article should be in the infobox. 31.218.19.119 (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree. They seem to be largely historical. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]