4,043
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Chronologies
:Thanks for your thoughts. If at any time you think of anything to be added to the template, it's never too late. Re your first two points, you are right about the formats. Mine are just wrong as I very quickly put two tests up. As for the links section, well that might not be the best title. The subcategories in the box on the 1st Afghan page are the main use I can think of at the moment. Now, I strongly feel that each war should have it's own article, where the infobox would be and all of the other excellent content you've been adding. Once there is a lot of information on the category page, the listed articles all get a bit hidden away at the bottom. As far as I am concerned, articles are for content, categories are for organisation. Anyway, if the infobox was on an article page the link to the category would make sense, although maybe the link title could be 'All battles and actions' or something like that. Keep going as you are though, I will convert them over when I eventually get some time (still haven't finished taking the dates off those categories yet!)
:A few typos every hundred edits aren't many! Anyway, that is what the checking is for. Tiny mistakes are inevitable and often need a second eye. [[User:Sarahb|Sarah]] 12:09, 24 July 2009 (PDT)
== Chronologies ==
Right, I think you've lost me. I understood what you said on my talk page and I agree that is probably the clearest way to go about things, but I can't quite follow this Predecessor/Successor business. [[12th Regiment of Bengal Native Infantry]] for instance, I can't see how the two fit together. Maybe a little line of explanation is needed at the top of each section.
The other matter is the regiments that mutiny. The chronologies stop at the point of mutiny (which obviously I understand). But how, in reality, are (for instance) [[17th Regiment of Bengal Native Infantry]] and [[2nd Gurkha Rifles]] connected? I am ''guessing'' that once the 17th had mutinied that number was then free to be reassigned in 1861, and so there is no actual connection between the regiments. Is that right? If yes, we need some way of making that clear on the 17th's page. We could go with the wikipedia-style method of a little disambiguation line in italics at the top saying 'For the post-1861 regiment of this name, see the 2nd Gurkha Rifles'. It worries me that it's too confusing otherwise.
I see you are getting in a lot of edits before your holiday! [[User:Sarahb|Sarah]] 07:08, 31 July 2009 (PDT)
