User talk:Symorsebrown

From FIBIwiki
Revision as of 03:52, 22 November 2009 by HughWilding (talk | contribs) (Clarification of edit)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

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)

4th Gurkha Rifles

I noticed you created a page for the 4th Gurkhas Rifles but that there was already a 4th Gurkha Rifles. I have redirected the new page but copied your more thorough chronology over to the old page. Hope thats ok - if you think the title should be Gurkhas rather than Gurkha, just swap them over, Sarahb 14:12, 5 May 2009 (PDT)

33rd Punjabis

Well I took the 'no big deal to keep as a redirect' attitude, but if you do think no one will ever search for them under that name, then it is just clutter. Will remove. Thanks for letting me know, Sarahb 07:47, 7 May 2009 (PDT)

12/5/09

  • 4th Hussars - well I don't know what happened there! It was blank the two times I tried to load it, but is working today. Rolled back my change. Thanks for pointing out.
  • Chronological list - Very good idea about the NWF campaigns. I've got a couple of things I need to finish then I'll set one up. I do think we should remove the dates from the categories now, I need to have another go at getting the method I was working on up and running. Will do so when finished with Apothecaries etc.

Keep up all that good work on the regiments. Sarahb 10:12, 12 May 2009 (PDT)

Chronological lists

Just for reference, I have started moving the battles from campaign categories with dates in their titles to ones without. It isn't using the fast method I had hoped, but a slightly faster one than totally manually (a browser plug in that will do find and replaces). Feel free to do any, but no need to make a point of it. I am going through them in the order they appear on the Chronological list. I set up a Chronological list of North West Frontier Campaigns, you can add the articles to that or I will when I get around to it! Sarahb 14:59, 13 May 2009 (PDT)

1st Belooch Regiment

I searched 1st Belooch Regiment on Google and it does come up with some hits (as does 2nd Belooch) so I think this one is a good candidate for a redirect. Unless you disagree, could you do it rather than me as I don't know for sure where it shpuld be redirected to! I don't think the article needs to be in the regiment category as it is just an alternative spelling (rather than an alternative name). Sarahb 10:44, 15 May 2009 (PDT)

Hmm, I suppose it isn't really desirable to have pages with no category. Lets put them here. Sarahb 11:49, 15 May 2009 (PDT) Forget all that, I confused myself. Most redirects don't need categories. There are lots of them (see Special Pages, List redirects). Sarahb 12:52, 15 May 2009 (PDT)
See the tool box on the left (under the search box). There is a special pages link that lists lots of interesting things. Sarahb 08:19, 17 May 2009 (PDT)

Re:Recent edits

NWF list not yet quite finished - I was thinking, whilst doing things related to the 2nd Maratha War today, that it might be nice to do the same for some of the wars. I've probably lost my mind though as it takes an age and I have a lot of things to do first. We'll see!

Battles - will make an article entitled Battles to fix matter. I'm not really sure where to put that old list as I agree it shouldn't actually be deleted. I'll think of something. Re Battles category being accessible from the military category - are there any battles that don't form part of any war or campaign?

The other issues - now some of those are what are called double redirects. When you move a page you need to check for them and I thought I picked most of them up, but obviously not. Basically, a redirect page that goes to a redirect page won't carry on to the intended page - if that makes sense. You can check the in-links to any page by clicking What links here in the toolbox. So if you look at the one for Barzai Expd here you can see what I mean. The 2 pages listed under Baiz Exp 1849 (a redirect) link to it and one of those is itself a redirect. I'll leave it for a bit so you can see. The reason I am bothering to explain (somewhat clumsily) is that its something to remember when moving pages. I will redirect it to the correct page so it doesn't cause any problems.

Now the reason I added ‘The Baizai Expedition of 1849 saw the Battle of Baizai Territory' was just to keep the Battle of BT in there for google search purposes. If it is a term that really doesn't exist, just take it out. I have only heard of it from the redirect page. I suggest we keep the redirect page for any future reference though as they really don't hurt, take up almost no computer space (as they are empty) and are totally hidden away.

With the other two is the only problem that there are redirects to them with redundant titles? If so, I am in favour of leaving them in case they are titles that people come across in records or old books. As I say, they do no harm. If there is another problem, please re-advise.

Now, a question for you. Have you any idea if these Hyderabad regiments are what this article calls the Hyderabad Subsidiary Force? Sarahb 11:35, 20 May 2009 (PDT)

Polygar War

Oh, another thing. In the 94th Regiment of Foot article, which I was adding sections and links to today, it mentions the Polygar War. Maybe you could add it when you have time? Unless we have it under a different name that is. I very quickly looked it up on wikipedia, but that seems to have had some dubious recent edits, so I recommend this slightly older revision of that article. Regards, Sarahb 11:43, 20 May 2009 (PDT)

The Mharwara Battalion

Noticed that the article title and the chronology spell the battalion name differently. Does the article need moving? Also, had noticed this (and some other similar articles) are titled The etc etc. I wonder if they should be moved for consistency? We don't have The 43rd Regiment of Foot, for example. Thoughts? Sarahb 12:04, 20 May 2009 (PDT)

Moved. Re other matters - Auxiliary Regts, yes there are an awful lot there! Everything will get done one day, I'm sure. Besides, you are doing a sterling job working out all of the Native regiments. I find them very confusing and I'm sure most other people do too, so I think the pages you've been working on are very important. Re chronol. lists - oh yes, listing the actions in each war is a much better idea. I had noticed you had started doing that in places actually. Re pages you have recently put for deletion - I think I am going to keep Jacob's Horse as a redirect as it is quite possible someone will search for that, I agree with the other's though. Scinde horse might be the same case - is there only one reg called that? Sarahb 12:06, 21 May 2009 (PDT)

Nizam's Army

I've created a category called Hyderabad Contingent as I think those regiments shouldn't only appear in the Indian Army Category (and I assume they would be misplaced under Madras Army). We could probably do with some info on what exactly this contingent was at some point, but no rush. Sarahb 10:46, 4 June 2009 (PDT)

Oh I see, so the Nizam's Regts are even more confusing than the Madras Regiments (was just doing the checking on your recent changes, I don't know how you're picking your way through those). I only brought this up as I was adding some info to the Secunderabad article and I needed a link to the Hyderabad Contingent (so made a category). I was sort of guessing that the HC was synonymous with the Nizam's Army, but if that is not correct we can amend as necessary. This page of the Imperial Gazetteer mentions some stations of the HC.
As for the naming system you have chosen for the Madras regiments, sounds fine to me. The most important thing surely is picking a system and sticking to it. Sarahb 04:54, 5 June 2009 (PDT)

Tables

For a clearer explanation than I can probably give, see Help:Tables. Obviously get back to me with any questions. I recommend copying this table. Sarahb 03:59, 9 June 2009 (PDT)

Duar War

Could you add this when you have time? Happened across it. Many thanks Sarah 12:15, 9 June 2009 (PDT)

Replies

Just had a look through all the maps and they're looking great. A nice thing about the route marked on terrain view is that you can see the army weaving around the mountains. I just think the map instantly makes the whole thing make more sense. Being able to see where all these battles are in relation to each other makes a big difference.

Enjoy your trip, if that is what you are up to. It will be very quiet on here! Sarah 05:48, 11 June 2009 (PDT)

Wars

Hello Sy. It was bothering me that the pages for the wars (mostly category pages, although some of those are getting so full of info they could be converted to articles) didn't have an infobox like the battle pages. It felt like there was something missing. So I have made a basic one (here and have put two tests at Category:1st Maratha War and 1st Afghan War. Could you have a look and see if there is anything else you can think of that would be useful in such a template? Thank you, Sarah 16:17, 23 July 2009 (PDT)

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. 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! Sarah 07:08, 31 July 2009 (PDT)

Affghanistan!

Do you know, I did wonder for a minute if that was how it should be spelt in that particular case! I thought though it must be a typo as none of the other Afghanistan Battle Honours had the double f. I meant to put "typo, I think" in my edit summary. I absolutely agree that the spellings as they are on the BHs should be used. I'll reverse my 'correction'. Sarah 12:25, 10 September 2009 (PDT)

Oude Campaign

I see you are bravely sorting out the Mutiny battles! We now seem to have two things listed as the Oude campaign (Category:Oude Campaign and the one listed here). Is that second, earlier one correct? If so, we will need to distinguish between these two somehow. Ideas? Sarah 14:17, 10 September 2009 (PDT)

Madras NI

Re a couple of recent edits to:

Are those italicised notes correct? Obv I do not know, just checking as regiments are MNI and the notes are concerning the BNI. Sarah 11:39, 14 September 2009 (PDT)

Image template

Template:ImageOL or shortcut imageol

I gave it the stupidly difficult to remember title 'Image Origin and License'. Sarah 05:42, 30 September 2009 (PDT)

Another template

Oh, in case this is ever of use to you, I copied a template from wikipedia that allows the table of contents to be right-aligned (useful when it has got very long). I have used it on Apothecary. You can find it at Template:TOC right. It probably isn't right for things with an infobox though. Sarah 05:48, 30 September 2009 (PDT)

Jheeghun

Sy, the easting co-ords for Battle of Jheeghun are missing. I couldn't pinpoint Jhinjhan to fix it myself, sorry Sarah 12:29, 5 October 2009 (PDT)

Amristar photos

Nice uploads. Re the license, it's a little bit unclear what you mean. Perhaps change to something like external use with author's permission only (if that is what you mean) or maybe you might like this license. Sarah 07:07, 14 October 2009 (PDT)

License - I'll get back to you about this as I want to check exactly what our policy is supposed to be.
Massacres - I think if it isn't considered a battle it shouldn't go in that category. The Indian Mutiny events you raise are a good point. Bibigarh and possibly Delhi are not really actions between two armed forces - they can just be in the Indian Mutiny category alone. Not sure about Trimmoo Ghaut. Although an annihilation, if there is fighting involved between recognised parts of the armed forces then perhaps it is a battle? It's fine to have articles on the Mutiny that aren't in the Battles category. So the Massacre at Ajnala article you have written doesn't need to go down as a battle too, just a part of the Indian Mutiny. I don't think we need anything additional, but if you prefer we could always just have Events during the Indian Mutiny or something nonspecific like that.
Mutinies - yes, I noticed them and did think maybe a new category was needed. You are right they would be strange in the Mutinies category but we can put whatever category we make into Mutinies as well as Indian Mutiny. Btw, it's ok to use the battle infobox on anything you think appropriate as it doesn't specifically mention 'battle' anywhere on the box. Well, we can't call the category Indian Mutiny Mutinies...how about something like 1857 Bengal Army Mutinies? Sarah 11:38, 14 October 2009 (PDT)

Battle maps

Yes, I can change that link. What do you think is best? A link to Maps (with a better explanation)? A link to Category:Campaigns with FIBIS Battle Maps (with a bit of explanation added)? Or we can make a whole new intermediary page. Also, I'm not sure I quite catch your drift but are you saying you want to change the name from Battlemaps to something else? Sarah 11:46, 15 October 2009 (PDT)

I actually think you are right and that maybe we should change the name to Campaign maps (even though its less catchy!) as really that is more self-explanatory too. That will involve making a couple of changes to the template (not a problem) and then changing the categories. If you are sure about that then say the word and I'll do the template.
As for renaming the Battles category Battles and Actions, I do agree it is a more accurate title, but I note there are 650 articles in the category... Sarah 14:58, 18 October 2009 (PDT)

Tibet

The internal link change I have made affects a recent edit by Maureen Evers - I didn't want you to think I was changing yours! :-) HughWilding 19:52, 21 November 2009 (PST)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.fibis.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Symorsebrown&oldid=19795"