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)
re various matters
Sorry, didn't have time to reply yesterday but did fix the issue you mentioned - I just made the first sentence not a heading but bold instead. I'm sure you knew how to do that already but just couldn't see the wood for the trees for a minute. I think making the Cathy Day website article into a subarticle was fine, but I am just checking with Valmay about this in case there is a solution she would prefer. I think your chronology should probably go above the old article though, just to keep it is the same place on all articles.
Did you have a think about rewriting the copyright section? I can do it if you like as I don't think we should leave it up there too long in its present state.
- Church article
Thats got good information. Obviously we can't copy the text, but can include the info somewhere. For now I just made the Thalassery location article and put the link in there. Can be linked up with churches category somehow later, but for now its there for anyone looking up Thalassery.
Sarahb 13:39, 27 March 2009 (PDT)
29/3/09
I checked this out with Valmay. The way you incorporated the old article was fine. I am going to make a little template to use for those with those articles transferred from Cathy Day's site and elsewhere, but don't worry about that - it'll make sense once you see it.
Truth is, I have no idea if a town of Belwar exists away from the fort, which is why I left as is for now. A quick google search shone no light on the issue. Belwar seems to be a tribe also? Let's leave two seperate articles for now (as it doesn't hurt) and just link them together. Hopefully, someone will know and be able to sort the issue out at a later date.
- Madras infantry matters
Hmm, I'm not totally sure as I don't know much about the Presidency infantry regiments. All the regiments I've come across for my own research have been cavalry or artillery (not that I know a great deal about those either!) so I haven't had much cause to investigate the infantry ones. I don't fully understand about the Native/European regiment issue. Looking at Madras infantry regiment category I see we have the following example -
- 24th Regiment of Madras Infantry
- 24th Regiment of Madras Native Infantry
I take it the first is the European regiment? My instinct is to keep them all in one category so as not to confuse someone browsing. I wonder if the European ones should be named as such (ie 24th Regiment of Madras European Infantry). Depends what their official name is I suppose. Do you have Peter Bailey's HEIC armies book? I don't, but wonder if it makes these issues any clearer. I don't think we need that extra category Madras Infantry inside the Madras Infantry Regiments category. Unless I have misunderstood, the two new articles you have created, Madras European Infantry and Madras Native Infantry are general articles covering all the regiments that fall under those titles. I am going to move the two articles up into the main category. They will be the perfect place to explain the differences etc between the two when you understand that.
- Wars/battles dates in categories
As far as I know, you cannot change the way the name displays in the list of categories/articles. Example - if the article on one of the Afghan wars does not have a date, we cannot make the wiki show one. The only way around this I can think of is to have an article that is a chronological list of wars/battles etc. I quite like the idea of that as it would provide a nice linked up history (also a good way to browse what is happening in India whilst your soldier ancestor is out there), although I appreciate it might be a bit of a task. Perhaps even just a list of wars/campaigns and major battles might work. What do you think?
Let me know if I've forgotten anything! Sarahb 10:48, 29 March 2009 (PDT)
Re Madras Infantry
I'm not sure if I have misunderstood all that about the European/Native infantry. If I'm reading your articles right, there were 3 Euro regiments and about 50 Natv ones? Then how does that affect the example I gave above about the 24th regiments? Are they in fact the same regiment and the articles should be merged? Sarahb 11:39, 29 March 2009 (PDT)
Bilwa
Sy, I'll answer your other comments when I have more time tomorrow, but I was trying to find out something about Belwar/Bilwa and came across this article: NZ Chronicle archive (I've found some very useful articles on there over the past few months). Bilwa is mentioned about a third of the way into the article and it clearly demarcates the town and the fort (to my reading, anyhow). Can't find it on google earth though so still don't know if it exists anymore. Sarahb 12:47, 30 March 2009 (PDT)
Other matters
- Chronological list of wars
Ok, lets do this then. It's donkey work I'm afraid, but it doesn't need to be rushed. Now, you have input all the battles so you are best placed to know this - are there lots of battles that don't form a part of specific campaigns? Do you think the list should just be wars, campaigns and isolated battles, rather than say list all battles of the Indian Mutiny? (That could be its own article perhaps.) Right, I have made a page here - Chronological list of wars and battles and a rough lead sentence and structure. We can change the article name if you think something else is more appropriate. I think we should break the list into double decades for readability and usability, so have done a few, but if I haven't started early enough, just put those in or if you think it should be broken into smaller sections go ahead. I have done a table format to keep it all uniform. Let me know if you need a hand working it out. We can add more columns if you think of something else important to go in. Anyhow, like I say, I have only made a rough version to get going with and we can make any changes necessary. I suggest going through the wars category by alphabet to fill this in and make a note on the talk page of the chronological list as to which letter you have got up to. Then we can both work on the list when we have time but still know what the other has done. Does that make sense?
Good idea to put that article snippet in. I fixed the picture size - just have a look on the edit page and you can see what I did. I might've found Belwar on a modern map. Not sure - see what you think. It's about 30 miles SE of Gorakhpur and just north of the larger town Deoria on this map. This account about it seems to fit, but I just don't know. We better not copy that one by the way!
- Native regiments etc
I agree that the way to go is have only one page for a regiment and then redirect any alternative names. Then those redirects can go in the appropriate categories. I don't think there will be a perfect way to do this due to the complexities of the regiment histories, so I think what you are doing now is the best way.
- Bold titles
Yes, I changed that bold title so that it didn't appear in the table of contents. About having it bigger - there is already a big title at the top of the article. A bold statement at the beginning probably draws enough attention the size it is now.
- Copyright etc
This was the page with the text from another webiste that I wondered if we shouldn't be copying - 9th Bengal Light Cavalry. It seems a bit long and when it is from someone else's website I think it is a bit different to quoting from a book. I am worried they might see it more as copying than quoting. If it was rewritten and then there was a line to say the source was the British Empire website that would probably be ok. I'm just erring on the side of caution.
I have quite a few things to catch up on here on the wiki so better do those before I start anything else but please point out anything to me I have said I would do and forgotten! Sarahb 13:23, 1 April 2009 (PDT)
Chronological list
With respect to categories, it can go in the top level of the wars and campaigns and then anywhere else we think it'll be useful, but lets leave it out until its got going a bit. As for changing categories, lets leave that for now as well - there's no rush to change them and lets gt this article sorted out properly first. I'll have a look at how many will be affected in order to know how much work it will be.
You asked shall we mix up battles and campaigns. That is what I was trying to ask your opinion on, but I just worded it very badly! The article should definitely be wars and campaigns. As for including battles, if most individual battles are in the Mutiny then we could leave those ones out (and just have '1857-58 Indian Mutiny' and a link to the category or whatever) and perhaps then include other individual, isolated battles in the list. What do you think?
Yes, I thought some campaigns would spread over 2 sections. I thought doing 2 decade blocks would minimise that as much as possible. I don't really know how to avoid it otherwise - the list needs to be split up somehow or it will be unreadable. Would it seem strange to put such a campaign in both '1860s & 1870s' and '1880s & 1890s' (for instance)? Sarahb 13:13, 3 April 2009 (PDT)
Replies
I agree with everything you said about the chronological list - campaigns/wars only for now (I'll change the title, but we can always change it back if needs be - do you think 'Chronological list of wars and campaigns' is ok?) and putting the campaign into the starting decade seems the most sensible solution.
Regarding H.M. regiments, I completely agree with you and it isn't picky. I was just changing the title of a previous article that already employed that convention and so I assumed it was deemed desirable, but if the use of initials has been pointed out before then I'll change this one as it's obviously an anomaly. Sarahb 08:15, 5 April 2009 (PDT)
I've been tinkering around with some software and have found a way to quickly change lots of articles to be in a different category (ie Category:1st Afghan War 1839-42 to Category:1st Afghan War). Seeing as its so easy, I think it's probably a good idea to do that before we start putting the wars into the chronological list (as we would only have to change the links again afterwards). I'm just going to check with you first though in case there's something I haven't thought of here. If you think it sounds ok, I'll start zipping through them tomorrow.Sarahb 11:34, 5 April 2009 (PDT)- Hang on, I'll strike this out for now as I can't get the software working on this wiki. Will investigate. Carry on as before! Sarahb 11:55, 5 April 2009 (PDT)
Template use
Sorry for the delay in this reply - I haven't had a chance to do any work on here for a few days. All looked good to me - I just made a few minor adjustments (section instead of article for instance). I hadn't seen some of those articles. Those sections are very comprehensive aren't they! I particularly liked the Regimental details section of the 84th Regiment of Foot article. Maybe one day we could get around to borrowing that idea for the other regiments! Sarahb 12:52, 14 April 2009 (PDT)