Talk:Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers

Colours redirect to color, which is obviously not what the article is discussing. Should it point to Colours, standards and guidons instead? CapnZapp (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

Regarding concerns over use of copyrighted material, whilst some of the updated material I added to the page is from, or bears a remarkable resemblance to, the Official Army page that is because we own that information also. As the Regimental Operations Support Warrant Officer for the R Mon RE (M) I am, at the behest of the CO, seeking to update/modernise our web presence in its totality. We updated that page through the Army webmaster some time back and have used variations on that (updated) text in a number of ways since.

My thinking is that as owners of the 'Intellectual Property' as it were then we are able to use it as we wish? Happy to be educated... --RMonREM (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi, good to see the antecedents of most of the Engineers here!! R Mon RE (M), or the Army, may have the copyright, but because of the way WP works, as I see some others have started to explain to you, you're editing as a random user, technically with no connection to the Army (I think people have started to quote WP:COI at you already). To reproduce HM Copyright material from the Army site onto Wikipedia you will have follow the procedures laid out at WP:DONATETEXT. That will keep both you and the official Army site material in the clear. I see you're already seeking help from others; don't hesitate to do so from me as well. Hope it's not too cold in Wales right now!! Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070922082458/http://www.win.tue.nl/~drenth/BritArmy/Lineage/RE/index.html to http://www.win.tue.nl/~drenth/BritArmy/Lineage/RE/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC) [reply ]

The article states

Soldiers of the regiment are Sappers but also militiamen and wear the militia flash in perpetuity, as observed by Brigadier John Henry Ridge CBE when inspecting troops during the Sapper 300 celebrations in 2016.

This is supposedly sourced from the one page article, on page 17, of the Regimental Newsletter does not mention any of this. It should be removed from the article. Keith H99 (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I agree. Dormskirk (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC) [reply ]