Talk:Gold Medal (RGS)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gold Medal (RGS). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927221002/http://www.rgs.org/NR/rdonlyres/C5962519-882A-4C67-803D-0037308C756D/0/GoldMedallists18322011.pdf to http://www.rgs.org/NR/rdonlyres/C5962519-882A-4C67-803D-0037308C756D/0/GoldMedallists18322011.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Split?

I fail to see why the two medals are covered by a single article, so I'd suggest splitting them. Suggestions? Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC).

I believe the reason may be because both are among the highest decorations issued by the Royal Geographical Society. But I'll take you up on that suggestion by announcing my intent to overhaul the article first, and then, in all likelihood, splitting them, as I believe there's much to be improved. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 13:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Jay D. Easy: what's the status of this? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 14:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Piggybacking off wikidata work done by @Ghouston:, I've started a draft list (Draft:List of recipients of the Founder’s Medal) after which I plan to do the same for the Patron's Medal. Would appreciate feedback as the intention is to display the data using a Wikidata list. Hopefully this would help bring about an effective split.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The list for the Founder’s Medal is largely complete; some award rationales are still needed. It would also be helpful to have a better way of linking the wikidata references. That said, it's my intention to shortly move to the Patron's medal.--Labattblueboy (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

List of recipients of the Founder’s Medal is complete. Articles have been redirected to either Founder's Medal or Patron's Medal (or similar derivatives). The last step is to create an article or list for the Patron’s Medal.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Axolotl Nr.733 defo a split. How about the following format:

We keep the three intro paragraphs. Down underneath we create an intro line to the section titles and then link them like this:

Gold Medal (RGS) Recipients since 1970

Gold Medal (RGS) Recipients (1901–1970)

Gold Medal (RGS) Recipients (1832–1900) Saussure4661 (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft:List of recipients of the Patron's Medal is now working its way along. After it's brought into the main space I would suggest all the recipient sections could be deleted as they will be addressed in the two list articles.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

So is the plan to move Draft:List of recipients of the Patron's Medal into mainspace and then make this page a disambiguation page between the two? This would make sense, but then I would rename the two pages Founder's medal and Patron's medal instead of keeping them as lists. They already contain more prose each than this combined article does! Felix QW (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)