Talk:Yeomanry Cavalry

Untitled

Bold textAnyone out there know where the Queen’s Own Royal Glasgow and Lower Ward of Lanarkshire Yeomanry Cavalry fit into all this? Thanks, ::Supergolden:: 12:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Warden

Who is the "warden of the yeomanry" (from the article on Praise-God Barebone)? --CopperKettle 00:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Question?

The text on April 12, 2012 reads: "The word 'yeoman' refers to small farmers who owned the land they cultivated as opposed to peasants, but the officers were drawn from the nobility or the landed gentry, and many of the men were their tenants." Assuming "men" in the sentence refers to yeomen, how could yeomen own the land they cultivate yet be tenants of the gentry? The sentence is confusing to the reader. I thought a knowledgeable editor could make the sentence clearer.04:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see recat sentence; does this help? S a g a C i t y (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I made a minor edit to make the sentence clearer. Please look over my small revision. Iss246 (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Article scope?

I think this article suffers from an identity crisis:

• The first line indicates the subject to be about a British Army unit;
• The majority of the article discusses the Yeomanry Cavalry as a whole, which existed as a distinct entity from 1794 until its incorporation into the Territorial Force in 1908;
• the final sections return to the theme of individual British Army units, which by history and name maintain the yeomanry heritage, representing more a collective term rather than the now defunct entity.

I've already started work on expanding the article, and plan to restrict the subject to the "Yeomanry Cavalry" that existed between 1794 and 1908 (including the period 1901-1908 when it was known as the Imperial Yeomanry). The implication is that post-1908 details will be covered in summary form only in an aftermath section, and I think that in due course the lists of surviving yeomanry units might be better moved out to a separate list article. Inviting comments on this from anyone who wants to weigh in on the subject. Factotem (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Page split

Although the page move request below is not appropriate, I do believe that separate articles for "Yeomanry" and "Yeomanry Cavalry" are justified. The former would be a general history from formation to modern day, and the latter specific to the period from formation to 1908 when it was a discrete institution. To accomplish this I plan to revert this article back to how it was before I started editing it, and move my own edits to the existing "Yeomanry Cavalry" disambig page. I am aware that this will need the page history and the current peer review to be moved, and will seek the help of an admin to do this. Inviting comments here. Factotem (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• That seems fine but did the "Imperial Yeomanry" of 1902 undergo substantive change (beyond loss of this collective designation) when incorporated into the new Territory Army in 1908? My understanding is that the 54 regiments then in existence retained their individual titles, horses, county recruitment, county association funding, dress uniforms, insignia etc until the major post-war adjustments of 1922 saw sweeping amalgamations, mechanisations, conversions to artillery and disbandments. In short could the expanded "Yeomanry Cavalry" article be extended to include the last fully mounted period through to 1914/15. Just a thought. Buistr (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Good point. There are three significant dates for the yeomanry in the early 20th century: 1901, when it became the Imperial Yeomanry; 1908, when it became part of the Territorial Force; and 1921, when it went through amalgamation/disbandment/diversification of role. I've covered the last of these with a paragraph in the "Heritage" section, and there's certainly room for improvement and expansion there, but my feeling is that that is better handled in detail in the general yeomanry article. Arguably, 1901 is an appropriate end-point for the "Yeomanry Cavalry", as that is when they lost the cavalry title, as well as the formal role as mounted police, but they resisted the change to mounted infantry with some success, and remained a discrete institution. Incorporation into the Territorial Force in 1908 is, I think, the best end-point, because that separation of institutions ended and they were lumped in with the volunteers, administered by the same County Territorial Associations in an entirely new, unified auxiliary, and formally relinquished its constabulary role. Another concern is the size of the article, which is already approaching the point where Wikipedia starts recommending splitting off, and any extension into the First World War will introduce the requirement for a significant narrative covering yeomanry actions in that conflict. This already has its own article at British yeomanry during the First World War which, at 15Kb of readable prose, and arguably requiring more to bring it up to scratch, would push this article beyond an acceptable size. Factotem (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I would have no problem at all with a separate article (or articles) covering the Yeomanry Cavalry period in detail, retaining this article as a general history from formation up to the present day. Congratulations on all your good work so far. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It's been a week now, and there does not appear to be any opposition to this, so I will go ahead and ask an admin to move my edits to the "Yeomanry Cavalry" page and revert this article back to how it was before I started. Factotem (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The page move and revert of the original Yeomanry article to its original state was requested on 22 February 2018 and completed the next day. A technical glitch appears to have messed up the page history, though. Factotem (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 30 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closing with no move. The nominator has withdrawn the request in favor of creating separate articles for the Yeomanry and Yeomanry Cavalry. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Yeomanry → Yeomanry Cavalry – Correct historical name for the force Factotem (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Details rationale:

• In its subsequent legislation, the government of the time referred to the force as the "yeomanry cavalry" (see https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7wjKeKNK9qUC&q=yeomanry#v=snippet&q=yeomanry&f=false)
• When first raised, and before they started giving themselves regular cavalry names such as Hussars and Dragoons, the corps called themselves "Yeomanry Cavalry"
• The force is generally referred to in the sources as "Yeomanry Cavalry":

• Wyndham-Quin's history of the Gloucestershire Hussars, published in 1898, is titled "The Yeomanry Cavalry of Gloucestershire and Monmouth";
• Mileham's "The Yeomanry Regiments" states on p. 10 that at its inception the force was called "Gentlemen and Yeomanry Cavalry";
• Hay's "The Yeomanry Cavalry and Military Identities in Rural Britain, 1815-1914" uses the name in the title, as the first statement in the introduction and in various places thereafter.

• The force officially ceased to be a discrete entity when it was incorporated into the Territorial Force in 1908, whereas the term "yeomanry" is a generic, collective term, rather than a proper noun, for units that can trace their heritage to yeomanry regiments of the 19th century.

There is an existing page for Yeomanry Cavalry, but it is a rather pointless DAB for just two of the many yeomanry cavalry regiments (in the UK alone, one of the two actually refers to a New Zealand unit). As this page exists, I understand that I need an admin to actually make the move, assuming there are no objections. Factotem (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure a Wikilawyer will give us the citation but it's a fundamental of this project that we use the 'popular' rather than the 'official' names for articles. In this case it's clearly as used now. S a g a C i t y (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The common name has always been Yeomanry. Yeomanry Cavalry should actually redirect here and not be a dabpage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment As noted above, "yeomanry" is a generic, collective term that encompasses a range of organisations that trace their origins to 1794 and exist today in a very different form. The name "Yeomanry Cavalry" represents a distinct, albeit nebulous institution that survived the disbandment of its original parent organisation the British Volunteer Corps and only ceased to exist as an independent entity when it was combined with the Volunteer Force to form the Territorial Force in 1908, at which point it relinquished its own local control and, like the Volunteer Force units, came under the administration of County Territorial Associations. We have separate articles for a whole raft of British auxiliary forces which, in addition to the three already linked, include the Militia, the Volunteer Training Corps of the First World War and its Second World War equivalent the Home Guard, the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve and the modern day Army Reserve. Why should the Yeomanry Cavalry be any different? Now it looks like I made a big mistake to effectively hijack the original Yeomanry article, and there should probably still be a separate article covering the general subject "Yeomanry", but I think the subject matter for "Yeomanry Cavalry" warrants its own article, and the large number of GBooks hits seems to support this. Factotem (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support "Yeomanry Cavalry" is a very specific and clear identifier and should avoid any confusion for readers looking up (say) "sturdy English holders of small rural estates" instead of "volunteer cavalrymen". Incidentally the recent and extensive improvements in the present Yeomanry article are making this a very high quality product. Buistr (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose They seem like justifiably separate articles to me. Yeomanry Cavalry should be summarised as part of the Yeomanry article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support because of the obvious generic senses and the particular sense in this article. Keith-264 (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I would like to withdraw this request, with thanks to everyone who contributed. I believe that separate articles for "Yeomanry" and "Yeomanry Cavalry" are fully justified, but realise that this is not the correct way to do it, and will pursue this by different means. See the "Article scope? - Page split" section above for more details, and please do voice any concerns there. Factotem (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Citations

Cite 11 has a CS1 warning (original url defunct I think) [1] this might help. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. That cite references regiments.org via the web archive. The cite code included the parameter deadurl=unfit. That parameter is intended to flag "original urls that point to live sites that are inappropriate: spam, advertising, porn, etc" The URL regiments.org is currently none of these, rendering the 'unfit' parameter false, so I just removed it. Factotem (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)