Talk:Volunteer Officers' Decoration

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 20:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Page needs titling Volunteer Officer's Decoration

It's unclear (and confusing) as to why page "Volunteer Officer's Decoration" redirects to the shorter-titled page "Volunteer Decoration". Debrett's clearly states that the order has a full three-word title (see 'VD' at ref: http://www.debretts.com/people/honours/crown-honours-.aspx). The Wiki article likewise states the three-word description (ie. "Volunteer Officer's Decoration" in its text more often than the two-word alternative. The redirection should be reversed. Pete Hobbs (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Just noticed the redirection was indeed reversed at 23:11 on 23 Feb 2013 by User:EricSerge. Nice one! Many thanks - it's always heartwarming to find requests noted and acted upon. However the "new" page has an apostrophe in the wrong place - should be Officer's (singular) not Officers' (plural), as always given to an individual. Can this be corrected? Sorry I don't know to edit-request by other means, although I'm ever-learning.. Pete Hobbs (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Howdy. I saw that Debrett's had it as "Volunteer Officer's Decoration", but had remembered seeing both ways. Upon further investigation I found the London Gazette order of wear listing has it as "Volunteer Officers' Decoration"[1], it is the same at the direct.gov.uk website [2], and in the Royal Warrant establishing the decoration [3]. In my mind those sources seemed authoritative. Cheers. EricSerge (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. On reading the above reply I initially thought surely Debrett's typing would be more accurate than London Gazette hacks and typesetters, but on studying both Gazette ref pages (1892 and 1925) I see there's a precise consistency throughout - ie. Officers', and the plural apostrophe is also used in describing a separate Colonial Auxiliary Forces Officers' Decoration (also postnomial V.D.) on the same 1925 Gazette page. So the title and basic description are now exactly right and clear for all - which must be useful for others e.g. anyone researching relatives with a V.D. decoration. I think there's now a need for a new stub page about the Colonial Auxiliary Forces Officers' Decoration (VD), or maybe as an extra section to this article, as I begin to suspect it might be the proper title of the 1894 extension to officers in India and the Colonies - South African military decorations#Colonial forces 1894-1913 refers to it being granted in 1900–13 for example, and I've just seen a VD medal image inscribed Colonial Auxiliary Forces and with a VR insignia in the centre. Ah - http://www.northeastmedals.co.uk/britishguide/territorial_decoration/volunteer_officers_decoration.htm has full details. I'll use that to clarify the article further. Many thanks for above input re the apostrophe. Pete Hobbs (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)