4,043
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
adding some thoughts
:The Siege and Relief of Chitral article should follow the same logic. The argument that the Wikipedia article is fuller and goes beyond 1947 is irrelevant as long as the external link is provided on the Location page at the end of the search chain. Otherwise there would be no point in creating Fibiwiki Location pages. They are there because they provide something which the Wikipedia page does not i.e. British India information linked to the Fibiwiki database.<br>
:--[[User:Symorsebrown|Sy]] 01:45, 13 November 2009 (PST)
::Oh, I've just caught up with this discussion. This is a bit of a difficult one. I am of the opinion that where we have an inhouse article on a topic it should be linked to. If we farm people straight out to Wikipedia we are not showing them what content we do have or encouraging them to add to it! However, there are a few points relating to external links I hadn't thought of until now.
::So, on the battles pages we should almost always have a Fibiwiki article to link to as the places named there are relevant in the British era. I think it makes perfect sense for places in the military infoboxes to link to our articles. The Locations articles are a different matter though. The sections where Hugh is suggesting WP links are those relating to modern day details. What content will we ever have for inhouse articles on, say, [[Andhra Pradesh]] or [[Karnataka]], other than a link to WP? Perhaps the Military and Locations projects need different rules for their infoboxes.
::Thoughts? [[User:Sarahb|Sarah]] 13:03, 13 November 2009 (PST)
