Difference between revisions of "User talk:Symorsebrown"
(fixed redirects) |
(a couple of topics) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Redirects== | ==Redirects== | ||
Sy, I've worked out why those redirects weren't working. It's because there was a category above the redirect code. The <nowiki>#REDIRECT [[article]]</nowiki> needs to be the first thing on the page. [[User:Sarahb|Sarahb]] 12:18, 22 March 2009 (PDT) | Sy, I've worked out why those redirects weren't working. It's because there was a category above the redirect code. The <nowiki>#REDIRECT [[article]]</nowiki> needs to be the first thing on the page. [[User:Sarahb|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. [[User:Sarahb|Sarahb]] 01:51, 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. [[User:Sarahb|Sarahb]] 01:51, 25 March 2009 (PDT) | ||
Revision as of 08:51, 25 March 2009
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)
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)
