User talk:Symorsebrown

Redirects

Sy, I've worked out why those redirects weren't working. It's because there was a category above the redirect code. The #REDIRECT [[article]] needs to be the first thing on the page. Sarahb 12:18, 22 March 2009 (PDT)

Indian Army

Yes, that was a good idea to put (British), as 'from 1895' didn't then rule out the post-Indp army. I saw that wikipedia page too, it is helpful (and I might copy their table). As I didn't know that much about the Indian Army I used it to decide that things should only be categorised as Indian Army after 1895 and before that still as the Company Armies. As it said that before 1895 Indian Army was only an unofficial term I have decided to stick to that rule. If someone who knows much more about the Indian Army than us thinks it should be otherwise, then we can change it again. Sarahb 01:51, 25 March 2009 (PDT)

Its getting there! Sarahb 05:43, 25 March 2009 (PDT)

Skinner's Horse

I saw you put in that biographical information from the roots list. Do you know if it is a direct quote from the Dictionary of Indian Biography? If so, and that is not an out of copyright book, we cannot use it on the page. A rewrite in your own words (and then a reference) would probably be fine. Sarahb 01:51, 25 March 2009 (PDT)

Re:copyright As I understand the situation, anything on the site must adhere to UK/EU copyright law, regardless of who has added the information and where they are located. In cases where one is unsure, err on the side of caution so as not to cause problems for Fibis. In this case I don't think we can use the text, but it is perfectly acceptable to write a piece based on the text (and probably helpful just to acknowledge that in a references section). It's a nice background piece for Skinner's Horse so a rewrite and reference is probably the answer. Sarahb 05:43, 25 March 2009 (PDT)

Page names

I think it's probably proper (so to speak) to have the page titles be the full regiment name, which I assume then is 2nd Regiment of Foot (and maybe something in brackets where it is appropriate). If in the first sentence/paragraph of the article it states 'May be referred to as 2nd Foot or the Queen's Own' (or whatever is correct in this instance) then I think that should still work fine for google searches. You've already been doing that for some of the native regiments. I think it only need be done for the most common names or shorthands because all those other name changes come up in the chronologies. I don't think there can be a perfect solution to this as regiment names are a bit of a minefield, but that is my suggestion. What do you think? An alternative/additional solution would be redirects for those other common names. Sarahb 11:57, 25 March 2009 (PDT)