Talk:Mercian Regiment

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cheshire Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire 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.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. 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 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

"It was expected that the regiment's cap badge would have be a double headed Mercian Eagle with Saxon crown, but this has been rejected by the Army Board due to it's strong Territorial Army connection."

Well, if you go on the website, there's a great big double-headed Mercian eagle with Saxon crown....

It appears to me that the badges of the Mercian Brigade/Mercian Volunteers and the Mercian Regiment are exactly the same. What changes were actually made after the Army Dress Committee rejected the 'strangled chicken' design? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.88.21 (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The colour, as far as I can see... the Brigade badge's eagle was all silver, Here's one at ebay:[1]. It looks like the new version has a gold beak and legs [2]. A small difference, but presumably enough to keep the Committee happy? Lozleader 12:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt the type being "Light infantry" redundant and incorrect by the "role" section that shows the regiments battalions being light infantry/Mechanized infantry/reservists.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without a substantial amount of information on this, or other battalions, I propose to merge

Agree. I see no reason not to do this; not very much links to

4 Mercian, so it would not be controversial. [ dotKuro ] [ talk ] [ contribs ] 17:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Oppose. I think articles on individual battalions are perfectly acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with both of you, if the battalion has some notably by itself an article is appropriate. However this battalion at this period in time does not seem to be, as it has never been on active service. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mercian Regiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/regiments/6449.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/MERCIAN_Customs.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—