Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Infobox command structure"
From Linking experiences of World War One
(Created page) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
=== Canonical names for battalions that change regiments? === | === Canonical names for battalions that change regiments? === | ||
Presumably historians for those units have worked out the best label for them? If not, then what? Names need to be unambiguous at a page title level but redirects and 'see also' can get around some things.--[[User:Mia|Mia]] ([[User talk:Mia|talk]]) 11:26, 19 November 2014 (PST) | Presumably historians for those units have worked out the best label for them? If not, then what? Names need to be unambiguous at a page title level but redirects and 'see also' can get around some things.--[[User:Mia|Mia]] ([[User talk:Mia|talk]]) 11:26, 19 November 2014 (PST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Not sure. James, ''British Regiments'' and TLLT enter them under both regiments - the way they're structured means they don't need to decide a canonical name for a unit page. In the cases I know of, neither name is more or less ambiguous than the other. I suppose it's a toss up between the first and the last, but as you say, there will have to be redirects in any case. There are some cases where a change is so drastic that it justifies a new page, but I don't think an infantry battalion changing regiment is necessarily in that class.--[[User:GavinRobinson|GavinRobinson]] ([[User talk:GavinRobinson|talk]]) 12:52, 19 November 2014 (PST) | ||
Revision as of 12:52, 19 November 2014
Open questions
Allowing for administrative and tactical parent relationships with units
There's an existing Template:Infobox service record on Wikipedia which 'may be used to summarize information about an individual military unit's or ship's service history', perhaps this should be extended to include tactical command instead a version of Template:Infobox command structure?
I've started editing 21st (Reserve) Battalion Lancashire Fusiliers, British infantry to test the infoboxes. --Mia (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2014 (PST)
Canonical names for battalions that change regiments?
Presumably historians for those units have worked out the best label for them? If not, then what? Names need to be unambiguous at a page title level but redirects and 'see also' can get around some things.--Mia (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2014 (PST)
- Not sure. James, British Regiments and TLLT enter them under both regiments - the way they're structured means they don't need to decide a canonical name for a unit page. In the cases I know of, neither name is more or less ambiguous than the other. I suppose it's a toss up between the first and the last, but as you say, there will have to be redirects in any case. There are some cases where a change is so drastic that it justifies a new page, but I don't think an infantry battalion changing regiment is necessarily in that class.--GavinRobinson (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2014 (PST)
