Michael Posted 29 July , 2004 Share Posted 29 July , 2004 Pals I need your help The database is nearing completion but I need to rationalise the way that the regiments are represented. For instance, I have 17 different ways on the spreadsheet of representing The Queen's (Royal West Surrey Regiment) . Which convention shall I use ? I need to have a decision by Friday evening please. Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 29 July , 2004 Share Posted 29 July , 2004 Mick Suggest that the convention should be as Chris describes the various regiments on the mother site. Glad to hear it's almost there. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Saunders Posted 29 July , 2004 Share Posted 29 July , 2004 Mick Suggest that the convention should be as Chris describes the various regiments on the mother site. Glad to hear it's almost there. John Seems a good idea to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Fair Posted 29 July , 2004 Share Posted 29 July , 2004 Suggest that the convention should be as Chris describes the various regiments on the mother site. If you mean as Chris writes on this page that seems very sensible as they generally seem to be the commonly known names, rather than the full formal title. Depending on how the search tool will work, i think it would be worth making sure that some other commonly used names/acronyms are in the database as well e.g. Green Howards London Rifle Brigade - not everyone will know this is 5th Londons London Scottish KOYLI presumably the search tool will look for a text string within the field(s), like the MICs online appears to do, so hopefully could cope with this. I'd suggest keeping one field with the 'as written' entry as well as a field with the standardised name Mick - suggest you share anything particularly problematic here. charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John_Hartley Posted 29 July , 2004 Share Posted 29 July , 2004 [if you mean as Chris writes on this page that seems very sensible as they generally seem to be the commonly known names, rather than the full formal title. Yep. That's what I meant. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted 29 July , 2004 Author Share Posted 29 July , 2004 The list on the main site is a good idea, as is your idea Charles, to keep the raw data in a separate column. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to list all the variables for each unit, so I'll go with one description for now. This is something that could be introduced later on. Another question for you Charles, when we are dealing eg the 5th Londons shall I put London as the Regt and 5 as the Bn ? Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clive Maier Posted 29 July , 2004 Share Posted 29 July , 2004 What about Brigadier EA James as the reference? British Regiments: 1914 - 18, EA James, Naval & Military Press Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now