Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Philippine–American War Medal of Honor recipients/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 Scorpion0422 22:32, 20 June 2009 [1].

List of Philippine–American War Medal of Honor recipients edit

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. I have spent a lot of time and made a lot of edits to it to bring it up to where it is. Kumioko (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several of my comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Medal of Honor recipients (Veracruz)/archive1 apply here. Edit as necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,I don't mean to sound ungrateful but could you paste a few of the bog ones here.--Kumioko (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your comments from the Vera Cruz list I changed some things: I added spaces before and after endashes for date spans, merged the medal of honor section and a couple other minor tweaks. I would still appreciate some more comments though.--Kumioko (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the lead could use with a little expansion (especially take out the "This is a list of" start that has been deprecated at Featured lists). Also, this is more general, but is there any way that you could make {{Medal of Honor recipients}} collapsible? Right now, we're in a dilemma: The {{clear}} causes a lot of whitespace to appear and makes the lead look small, but removing it would squash the table badly, impeding readability and detracting from visual appeal anyway.
I took out the "this is a list" bitand I spent the last few hours rebuilding the Medal of honor template into one that can collapse (it took me a while to get a format I liked and to get things lined up pretty.--Kumioko (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be back with more comments in a few days. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't start lists with "this is a list" in the prose part anymore. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Kumioko (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I'll be back for more.
  • The template looks a lot better, nice job!
Thanks,--Kumioko (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to link United States of America, and I think we'll be fine with "United States".
Done. --Kumioko (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "between 1899 to at least 1902"-->from 1899 to at least 1902
Done. --Kumioko (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There needs to be more summary of the list. How many total MOH recipients from this war; who was the first; who was the most recent; any especially notable ones?
I added a summary of the number of recipients and mentioned the more notable ones. — jwillbur 19:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table should be centered. See the Vera Cruz list for the syntax that I added to the table.
I will do that if its required but to be honest I don't like how it looks centered. on my monitor it makes the dates, units and locations look screwy.--Kumioko (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need for it then. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • USMC needs to spelled out, or you should make a key.
Again I can do this however I would argue that USMC is a common knowledge term that nearly anyone, including those from foriegn counties would recognize.--Kumioko (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes that aren't complete sentences shouldn't have periods at the end.
Done, I left some periods but only where it appears to me to be a full sentence.--Kumioko (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With 11 other scouts, completely routed about 300 of the enemy" "routed" means what here? Captured, killed, injured?
Good question but this is what the MOH Citation reads, I can change it if necessary but I would prefer to keep it.--Kumioko (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Single-handed, he defended"-->Single-handedly, he defended? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is what the MOH Citation reads, I can change it if necessary but I would prefer to keep it.--Kumioko (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you put em dashes in the blank cells? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the ones that are the MOH Citation would it be better to put in quotes?--Kumioko (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, anything that is directly lifted from the source should be in quotes. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Kumioko (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Swam the San Juan River in the face of the enemy's fire and drove him from his entrenchments." Who is "him"
Him is the enemy, but again this is what the MOH Citation reads.--Kumioko (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is vague enough that I think it is alright to alter the quote a little (in brackets) to help the reader. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done I think but take a look and see if that will work.--Kumioko (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 5 needs publisher and last access info.
Done. --Kumioko (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Kumioko (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what I need to do about this, if I remove the image would that be accesptable?--Kumioko (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can find the source for the image, you'll have to. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I commented it out so knowone would add it back in later and as a placeholder to know its out there somwhere.--Kumioko (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crzycheetah
  • Strong oppose
    • I'd like to see the first two paragraphs merged; they're too short.
    • List of recipients → Recipients
      • I can make it italics but I do not agree that it should be upper case.--Kumioko (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am saying the section should be renamed to just List of rRecipients.--Crzycheetah 01:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Kumioko (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Place of action"? What action? Is it the place where they fought?
      • Yes it was the place where they fought.--Kumioko (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Date of action"? Huh? Was it the only day they fought?
      • Yes it is the date they fought and some was one day, some where multiple days.--Kumioko (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is really shocking to me that these men received a medal for a one-day battle. I'd like this to be mentioned somewhere, this is really interesting.--Crzycheetah 01:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that used to happen a lot but you won't see that after about WWI. The American Civil War ones where the worst.--Kumioko (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The link in the see also section is already in the template, so there's no need for that section.
    • What are the notes talking about? Some don't make any sense, especially those in quotation marks.
      • If they are in quotations marks they are most likely the actual medal of honor citation.--Kumioko (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You might note (in the article) that quoted material is taken directly from the Medal of Honor citation. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Louis Gedeon's note is at the neighbor's house
      • Fixed this. Also fixed the note on the next one down.--Kumioko (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • in 1999, the U.S. Library of Congress reclassified its references to use this term - Where's the citation?
      • This is meant to be a note to clarify the conflict itself, not a citation. I removed it though--Kumioko (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did you really remove it? I can still see it.--Crzycheetah 01:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I must not have saved it, check it now.--Kumioko (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For some, there's a whole paragraph written as a note; while for others, there are only several words.
      • This is because some citations are very short.--Kumioko (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is "Grandson of Admiral David Dixon Porter" a citation? Did David D. Porter receive his medal because of his grandpa? These "citations" that you're talking about here need to be explained a little in the article.--Crzycheetah 01:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done I added a note to the legend to explain the notes section. Let me know if there is a better way you would like to see this done.--Kumioko (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time reviewing these "medal of honor" lists and I am very disappointed. I felt like I went back in time. I see a vertical navigational template on top and many general references with no inline citations for the table. If there were one or two general references, I'd understand, but five? That's a little too much.--Crzycheetah 06:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opposition remains until the table width is fixed and the references are better displayed.--Crzycheetah 03:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The table problem should be fixed now.--Kumioko (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not fixed. My guess is that those nowrap templates don't let the table be at its natural width.--Crzycheetah 06:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess maybe I don't understand what your asking for then. The only scroll bar I see on all 3 of my computers is the scroll bar on the right to go up and down. Are you seeing a different one?--Kumioko (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the {{nowrap}} template, there's a horizontal scrollbar that goes left and right. The whole "Notes" column can only be seen when I scroll the page to the right.--Crzycheetah 02:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just to let you know, I checked all MoH lists and this is the only one that produces the horizontal scrollbar.--Crzycheetah 02:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made the width 98% on all the other lists after you told me about the problem but I am not sure why it does that for you on this one. I don't get it when I see the list.--Kumioko (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was just comparing this list to the Korean one and the only difference I noticed is the "service" column. There's "Army" there, but "U.S. Army" here OR "Navy" there, but "U.S. Navy" here. That's inconsistent! Plus, there's no {{nowrap}} template used in the Korean list's "Service" column. I am pretty sure that's the problem.--Crzycheetah 06:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent) If you want me to pick one way to identify the service thats fine, but whatever we decide I will go and change it for all the Medal of Honor lists so they are all consistent. Most of them use [Service] vice [U.S. Service] so I would recommend sticking with [Service] since the Medal of Honor is only granted to US service members (except for the tombs of Unknown soldiers for a couple countries). Also, in regards to the nowrap thing, the Vera cruz and iwo jima lists are also featured and use this template so see if you have the problem on them as well. I do not see what you are seeing on my computer so I have to conclude that its at least possible that its something to do with the settings on your computer. --Kumioko (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before, all lists other than this one look fine. For our info, there is no {{nowrap}} in the Veracruz and Iwo Jima lists for the "service" column, that's why I'm guessing that this "nowrap" thing makes this table longer than needed.--Crzycheetah 02:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look now. I took off the nowrap and I removed the U.S. from before them like most of the other lists are.--Kumioko (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it looks much better, but still not good. The scrollbar got shorter, but it's still there. I actually figured out how to get rid of that scrollbar, I just removed the only instance of the {{USS}} template from the "Place of action" column, that was in the Fitz row. What do you think about removing that template?--Crzycheetah 03:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fine.--Kumioko (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The references look much better, as well.--Crzycheetah 16:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How would you feel about re-naming the list. At present, reading it quickly it's easy to think you're about to see a list of American Medal of Honor recipients of Filipino descent. There doesn't seem to be a definite convention on naming these (of the three FLs of this type, I see three different naming patterns), so how about List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Philippine-American War (currently a redirect)? Cool3 (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally I don't care but it had that name a while ago and it was changed to its current name because of comments raised by another user.--Kumioko (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2009 (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_Philippine–American_War_Medal_of_Honor_recipients/archive1&oldid=297624217"