Talk:72nd Regiment, Duke of Albany's Own Highlanders

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 met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not 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

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Prose format for regimental histories

At the top of this article a box has this text: "This article is in a list format that may be better presented using prose". Is this really the best way to go for a regimental page? I would suggest a timeline in list format is a better way of showing the regiment's history in such a brief article.

Proposal to Merge Articles

Should this article not be merged with Seaforth Highlanders as it is essentially the same Regiment? Farawayman (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE

You might as well say why not just merge everything into the Royal Regiment of Scotland. I am no expert on military history (just a descendant of a member of the 72nd) but I understood that the 72nd had a separate existence and then was merged to become part of the Seaforth Highlanders, presumably you also propose to merge the article for the 78th (Highlanders) Regiment of Foot as well? --jmb (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE

I'm with 'jmb' on this one. You would have to do the same for every pre-1881 British army regiment. You would then have to take this argument to its logical conclusion and have all the pre-1881 Scottish regiments and post-1881 merged regiments merged into the Royal Regiment of Scotland article. That would mean merging 25 articles into one and that's only for the Scottish regiments. Brownag (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, point taken. I plan to do some work on the Seaforth Highlanders article - I have added the periods for which I have fairly comprehensive data (temporary bullet list in the article). However those periods cover the actions of the 72nd, 74th and 78th Foot, all generally known as the Seaforth's. I will do my best to indicate the unit designation appropriate to the action. Do you agree that it all could be amalgamated there - or should the information be recorded separately for each regiment on their own page? Farawayman (talk) 07:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Farawayman, I really think you should check your comprehensive data before updating any more pages. The 74th Highlanders were never Seaforths. 74th Highlanders became the 2nd Bn Highland Light Infantry in 1881 and had no lineage connections to the Seaforths. The Seaforth Highlanders article was fine as it was without your pre-1881 information which obscured the contribution of the 78th Highlanders. Up until your edit all the pre-1881 information was added to the pre-1881 numbered regiments articles. The pre-1881 information on the 72nd Highlanders should be removed from the Seaforth Highlanders article and placed here. Any pre-1881 information on the 78th Highlanders should be added to the 78th Highlanders article, and whatever informtion you have about the 74th Highlanders should be added to the 74th Highlanders article (however if your data says they were part of the Seaforth Highlanders then I would doubt its accuracy)Brownag (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brownag, I quoted the 72nd, 74th and 78th Foot from "memory" and not from the source I was referring to. It should have been the 72nd and 78th only. I have no objection if you wish to revert my edits, no problem at all. The reason I added the pre-1881 information into the Seaforth Highlanders page is because that is where their lineage goes back to, and from where their name "Seaforth" is derived. Adding the information into the respective individual unit pages is though logical, but it means that in order to read the history of the Seaforth’s, one needs to consult two or three different pages. I have a lovely set of books published circa 1885-1890 : Thomas MacLauchlan, ed. The Scottish Highlands: Highland Clans and Highland Regiments. (1st ed.). Glasgow: A. Fullarton & Co (Eight volumes) – The section on the Seaforth Highlanders is titled "Seaforth’s Highlanders: Formerly 78th now 72nd Regiment or Duke of Albany’s Own Highlanders." It covers the history in two sections 1778-1840 and then 1841-1873. I really believe this information (as well as some of the portraits / drawings / commanders etc) should be shared in the public domain. However, I’ll go by your recommendation, even if it is to undo the edits and leave the articles as they were. Rgds. Farawayman (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous Reference - Thomas MacLauchlan

The reference you cite as "Thomas MacLauchlan, ed. The Scottish Highlands: Highland Clans and Highland Regiments." is I believe, erroneous

This is in fact a reference to the compilation edited by John Keltie (1st Ed. 1875) to which Maclauchlan submitted "An account of Gaelic Language, Literature and Music" for a new edition in 1885. This work was an updated version of Stewart's Sketches of the Highlanders (1822) as first amended by James Browne between 1835-38. JF42 (talk) 19:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]