Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Victoria Cross recipients (G–M)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 00:07, 15 July 2011 [1].

List of Victoria Cross recipients (G–M) edit

List of Victoria Cross recipients (G–M) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Woody (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick on the heels of the recently promoted A–F list, this is the second of the three alphabetical lists. The errors pointed out in the A-F list have been fixed here as well and I think it meets the FL criteria. Thanks for your time, Woody (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
  • When I sort the table by "Date of action", Frederick Miller doesn't sort in the right place; it sorts between James McKechnie's 20 September 1854 and Thomas Grady's 18 October 1854. Albacore (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was a typo on my part, fixed now. Thanks, Woody (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments quick ones
  • No images of the recipients?
  • Don't mix date formats in the references.
  • "a single action was 7" - > seven.
  • Why doesn't Temp. Corporal sort the same as Corporal?
  • Same with Lieutenant. In fact, perhaps you could explain the sorting of the Rank column to me?
  • Refs - sometimes you have pp.x and sometimes pp. x (i.e. there's a space sometimes, others not).

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The VC lists don't have images for two main reasons, 1) there aren't that many images of the recipients available, 2) they would make the table far too large to be navigable. Fixed the date and 7/seven. With regards to the refs it is the {{LondonGazette}} template that puts the spaces in. Personally I prefer no spaces but if you think it needs to be consistent I can add spaces to the non-template refs?
The sorting is fairly simple in its logic, it sorts by rank (using the Nato codes ie. OF-1 etc) and then seniority. (ie inter-service seniority so Navy, Army then RAF) So, take the corporals as an example, all of the corporal ranks are together and sorted alphabetically, Naik and Lance Daffadar are the Indian ranks for corporal which is why they appear between Corporal and Temp. Corporal. I could perhaps do some sorting trickery to make all of the Temps./Acting/Substantives sort together if you think it appropriate? The Lieutenants is a slightly separate issue in that there are Naval Lieutenants and Army Lieutenants with different ranks so they sort differently. Woody (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps (and this is just personal opinion, of course) you could add a note explaining the sort order? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have "The rank column lists the rank of the recipient at the time of the action and it sorts by rank and seniority of service and not alphabetically." Do you reckon I should expand on what rank and seniority of service mean. I wrote as someone with military knowledge and looking at it that sentence now, it probably does need some explanation. Woody (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think a shade more explanation wouldn't go amiss. The fact you had to refer me to Nato codes means that to a general reader, it could be difficult to grasp. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does this sound: "The rank column sorts by the rank of the recipient at the time of the action. This column sorts by the comparative rank of the recipient within the British Armed Forces command structure. Within the British Armed Forces the Navy is the Senior Service, followed by the Army and then the RAF." Woody (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds perfectly splendid. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jolly good, now added. Ta, Woody (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support I agree with your use of Indian mutiny as it was called at the time, but some now consider it POV and as it redirects to Indian Rebellion of 1857 how about changing it to Indian rebellion with a redirect. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not quite understanding what you are asking? What do you want the reader facing text to be? I think the text should remain as is (Indian Mutiny) as that is what the sources used call it and that is what the British Armed Forces refer to it as. The specific list List of Indian Mutiny Victoria Cross recipients is at that title for precisely the same reasoning. Woody (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I am happy with Indian Mutiny just a comment that some now consider it POV, but as the sources call it that change to support. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Victoria_Cross_recipients_(G–M)/archive1&oldid=1089078242"