Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Victoria Cross/addition1

Victoria Cross (1st supplementary nomination) edit

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Victoria Cross for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:

It has taken a while to get this supplementary nom but it is my pleasure to bring you this supplementary nom for your consideration. As was stated in the campaigns FTC (and confirmed by another FTC nom last year) it has always been my ultimate intention to have the Victoria Cross topic looking like this. It has taken a while to get the alphabetical lists up to scratch but now they are, I think this is a complete topic. Thanks, Woody (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a reason why the Canadian Victoria Cross doesn't follow the same naming convention as the other countries? That looks pretty odd to me. Also, the Canada article has some dead links in it (current ref 8). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. Canada created a new Victoria Cross and named it the Victoria Cross (without the "for Canada"). The Canadian VC is a completely new medal, made of new material, with a slightly amended design. OZ and NZ used exactly the same medals, same gunmetal etc, they just gave them new names using the "for ..." suffix. Hence why there is the slight difference in naming convention. We are in effect using the official names and as such it would be misleading to change it to VC for Canada as that isn't what it is called. I've remedied the dead links thanks. Woody (talk) 07:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question why not just merge in the sub-topic, and have one large VC topic? Bencherlite ^Talk 09:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was covered in the two FTCs previously (the campaign one and a merge request. Essentially, I think using a sub-topic is the best way to present it. The topic would look messy in my opinion if you had all of the campaign lists in one box. I don't think it is "excessively sub-divided" rather it is a logical and aesthetic way of displaying the information. Woody (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have no strong opinions either way, so will be guided by you. Support good work. Have a FT Campaign Medal and a Long Service With Good Conduct Medal for your efforts. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there are still several deadlinks in those articles. Namely, in Victoria Cross, Victoria Cross for Australia, Victoria Cross (Canada), Victoria Cross for New Zealand, List of Crimean War Victoria Cross recipients, List of First World War Victoria Cross recipients. See the "Ext links" tool in the book reports (right hand side). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the deadlinks now, (not really "still" given that the Canadian deadlinks appeared in the last 5 days.) All the medal articles should be clean of them now. Thanks, Woody (talk) 09:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This topic needs more comments before a decision is made. GamerPro64 20:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with consensus to promote. Not ideal support levels, but any opposition to the supplemental nom would have popped up by now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]