User talk:Sarahb

Please sign any messages with ~~~~ so that I know who I am talking to. Thank you!

I have added (British) to your edit of "Category:Indian Army" to distinguish it from Indian Army 1858-95 and the post-Independence Indian Army both of which you find if you Google "Indian Army". I also found the informative Wikipedia page "Indian Army 1895-1947" which I have added to external links. Hope you approve.--Sy 05:21, 24 March 2009 (PDT)

Contents

Indian Army

It's all beinning to look a lot more coherent.--Sy 02:10, 25 March 2009 (PDT)

Skinner's Horse

Naively I thought that if it is in Google Books we are in the clear! However we come back to that old problem of the difference between copyright in USA and UK. Dictionary of Indian Biography is a snippet when viewed here. It may or may not be in full view in the US. Phyllis Danko who has been part of the Battles research has sent me PDFs available as downloads from Google Books which are full view for her in New Hampshire but a snipppet for me. Here's the conundrum: if SHE edits the FIBIwiki, can she use material that is copyright for her but not for UK? If I edit the FIBIwiki using the pdf, am I breaking copyright? Would it make any difference if FIBIS were American based? Globalisation brings such problems. But we need to have the answer.--Sy 02:10, 25 March 2009 (PDT)

BACSA link on RRL Cemeteries ...

Hi Sarah Sorry, but I am not happy about you forcing people to do a two-step to get to the BACSA website. The internal link adds no real value. It is far better for folk who are interested to be able to go straight to the horse's mouth. Note that the link should be to the BACSA mainpage and not to their publications page. The point of the link is to provide info on BACSA; I've listed the publications. Their list of transcription titles was produced by a not very good scan and at the moment contains a number of typos. So the question is: will you restore the external link or may I? Regards EleanorNeil 09:16, 25 March 2009 (PDT)

Page title/web search

Following our earlier discussion on the best title to encourage hits on the web I have been looking at the Regiment titles. The most obvious search term being the shortest, people are likely to look for say "61st Bengal Infantry" or "69th Punjabis". A large number of our titles have Regiment e.g. "38th Regiment of Bengal Native Infantry". I don't think we need 'Regiment of' in the title except perhaps for the Britsh Army Infantry but even 2nd Regiment of Foot is likely to be entered as 2nd Foot. There is a mixed approach here. What do you think is the best course?--Sy 10:02, 25 March 2009 (PDT)