Talk:6th Engineer Regiment (France)

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: European / French / World War I / World War II / Cold War / Post-Cold War

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

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

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	World War I task force
	World War II task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)
	Post-Cold War task force

Comments

I can't see why this article which is an obvious stub should be speedily deleted, why is it unremarkable? I was starting it by clicking on a wikilink from an article on regiment serving in Afghanistan. I think this proposition is abusive, I am editing at my own pace, and should be given the time to source the article. The article exists in the French version of wiki, and I'm intending to translate it, but in my own time. Blastwizard (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why the proposition would be incorrect, but abusive? I have never knowingly broken Wikipedia rules, and when I have been told that something I have done is wrong, I will always take in what the informer has had to say and try to apply it. To say that I am being abusive seems like you are accusing me of being a vandal, which I do not appreciate. I apologise for the tag, but I can assure you I am no vandal, nor do I purpously break Wikipedia rules. If you have anything else to add, please feel free to leave a message at my talk page, otherwise, I have nothing more to say. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I used a strong word, but I found a bit rich that within a few hours of the stub started, the article was already proposed for deletion. If not abusive I would call your action a over-zealous, as you didn't give much time for any improvements, I'm not full time wikipedian, I have a job and only edit in my spare time. Blastwizard (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fair enough, and I understand that completely. I can only apologise once again for jumping in too quickly. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

"6th RG" seemed an unlikely mix of English and French. Looking at List of French Army regiments the pattern seems clearly that articles on these regiments have the title in full in English, and the French name is linked to this by a redirect, the links from that article being unpiped links from the French titles. So I've moved the article to 6th Engineers Regiment, and created various redirects - including one from "6th Engineer Regiment" (not Engineers) because that was the English version given in that list. The website offers "English" but doesn't then lead to any useful pages as far as I can see - I tried to find out what the regiment reckons to call itself in English but failed. PamD (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point, it seems there was/is a 6th Engineers Regiment in the US army according to the article about US forces in WWW I, so maybe there is a need for a distinction between the two. Blastwizard (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's mentioned in just one article - see my note at Talk:United States campaigns in World War I. This was one of those times when stub-sorting led me on to a whole series of WikiGnome activity! PamD (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]