Talk:Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of orders, decorations, and medals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Commonwealth
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Commonwealth of Nations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. WikiProject icon
 
WikiProject Canada (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United Kingdom (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Precedence[edit]

It would seem from the current Canadian order of precedence for honours, decorations, and medals that the Diamond Jubilee Medal will fall after the Golden Jubilee Medal and before the RCMP Long Service Medal. However, since an anon editor keeps reverting the infobox to show an absolutely nonsensical order of precedence and the Diamond Jubilee Medal has not yet been officially inserted into the order of precedence, I've simply emptied those fields in the infobox until a reliable source can be found that affirms the medal's place. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright issue[edit]

Can anyone help me with the copyright issues of the picture of all three jubilee medals, and the specific picture of the Caribbean version. I do not understand the issue with the copyright of the picture that I have taken of my medal that I have purchased, in particular for this Wikipedia page. Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Canada vs the Commonwealth??[edit]

Why are all UK medal awards articles so wierdly Canadia-centric. The medals are issued in the name of the Sovereign of the UK and Commonwealth, but all these articles centre on Canadian medals and ignore the fact that it is primarily a UK award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.65.56.4 (talk) 08:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

In this case, given that Canada has produced its own medal, perhaps the Canadian medal should have its own page? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
There are other Commonwealth countries than Canada and UK, and citizens of at least some of those countries will be awarded the medal. One assumes it will be that number of UK medals that some combination of the UK and the Commonwealth country will decide. To date, for example, Australians Ben Roberts-Smith VC, MG and Keith Payne VC, OAM have been awarded the medal. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Belated clarifying post-script: The medals awarded to Roberts-Smith and Payne are UK medals awarded "in the Queen's Prerogative". (They are not part of the Australian Honours and Awards). Pdfpdf (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The Canadian and British medals are different; the Canadian one therefore isn't at all "a primarily British award". There's nothing "Canada-centric" about that fact.
Do we have any sources indicating that other countries besides the UK and Canada have produced medals or have awarded citizens the medal and which version? I've seen none. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Belated reply: No, to date there only seems to be the two medals. However, the Queen has the Prerogative to award the (UK) medal to whomever she so wishes, and has chosen to award it to members of the Commonwealth who have been awarded the Victoria Cross and the George Cross, and also the Victoria Cross for Australia. (However, I have not seen any mention of the Victoria Cross (Canada), or the Victoria Cross for New Zealand). Pdfpdf (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If they are different, they should have different articles. 2.27.81.7 (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The medal seems to me more versioned for the country of award than the two being actual different medals. The Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal also had a Canada version, yet that article contains info for both. I do not believe that they need to be split. EricSerge (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
They're different medals; Prince Philip has one of each. That, however, doesn't convince me the article needs split. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

They are different medals, however they are also the same and share a common history. Also, we could not talk about the British medal without mentionning that it was a Canadian Forces officer (Major Carl Gauthier, MMM, CD, AdeC) that designed the ribbon and the British who had a proposed idea first, accepted it Major Gauthier explained the logic with the Canadian Ribbon. This information is found on page 115 of Dr. McCreery's book on the subject. Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Page layout[edit]

While I can understand the intent behind dividing the article content between the UK and Canada, it results in the unfortunate and unnecessary repetition of subsections "Eligibility and allocation", "Design", and "History". The other articles on similar, multi-national anniversary medals are arranged like this one; I don't see a reason to render this one differently for no discernible benefit.

WP:LIST also encourages us to "not use lists if a passage is read easily as plain paragraphs." In the case of the paragraph that describes the allocation of Canadian Diamond Jubilee medals, the paragraph format suffices. WP:PROSE also says "[p]rose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain." Perhaps the prose of the paragraph in question could be better written; perhaps not. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Really? (ROTFL!) I will graciously accept your apology, should you choose to make one. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
And here I thought I'd found a decent compromise between your concerns and mine (and which also removed from the section itself a large block of numerical info causing imbalance in the prose). Perhaps you could try to be more constructive and propose an alternate solution. Unless you're actually satisfied with what I did, that is. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, as it is very similar to what I originally did, I am indeed satisfied with what you did. (It's just that I'm amused that you did it.) And to give credit where credit is due, your idea of putting it in a footnote is, in my opinion, an even better improvement. Dare I say it? - Good idea. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Given the duplication of common elements and differences are related solely to the different realms has consideration been given to using separate pages for both countries?


The person of The Queen is certainly the same person in each realm however The Queen of the United Kingdom is separate from The Queen acting in right of Canada so different heads of state authorised each medal. This is similar to the Victoria Cross, the Victoria Cross for New Zealand and the Victoria Cross for Australia however they have separate warrants and are only be awarded by the government of the respective nations "(just like the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal)" however each Victoria Cross medal is considered as separate from the other (by their respective governments) and each has a separate wiki page.


What is your opinion? Will separate UK and Canadian pages solve more problems than it creates?


Karl Stephens (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a proposal raised already in the preceeding section of this talk page. It has some merit; however, if it were carried out, this would be the only one of the Commonwealth-realms-wide commemorative medals to have two separate articles. The two pages would also be quite short.
I would othewise tend to say a split is unnecessary; the other commemorative medal pages were fine covering two or more medals created for the same event. That is, until this edit warrior anon showed up to rearrange everything, on almost all such pages, without any obviously consistent rationale, but still as he pleases. Splitting the pages would certainly put an end one of his favourite edit wars. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous user's edits[edit]

Anonymous editor 2.27.81.7 (talk · contribs) has made a series of edits and reverts with an explanation for none but one, expanding text that was easily condensed, removing proper reference templates, implementing a "small" format around descriptions of the medals' inscriptions, and removing sourced material. The anon (who's already been made aware of WP:3RR) should explain him/herself here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the anonymous editor hasn't seen fit to explain his/her more incomprehensible edits, I've reversed them: I altered wording to give the same information in a more condensed form, restored a cited and pertinent fact, and restored the proper reference templates. All that remains to be decided upon is whether medal inscriptions should be rendered with formatting around them. If it's to be used here, it will have to be repeated in a number of articles to keep them consistent. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Could the anon please explain why s/he feels compelled to delete information clarifying which medal the Lord President of the Council made an announcement about? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what the anon's explanation might be, but the edit comment states "was actually first announcement anywhere", which is indeed a fact (not an opinion), whereas your response of "irrelevant" is an opinion (not a fact).
Perhaps it's up to you to explain why you feel it is so important to include the phrase "in the United Kingdom"?
In terms of pure logic, (and nothing else), the addition of phrase "in the United Kingdom" is redundant because the context makes it blindingly obvious that the statement is referring to the UK.
But yes, I agree that you would find it annoying that the anon will not engage in communication.
However, on the other hand, the anon's edits seem considerably more logical and less subject to personal opinion than do yours.
For example, it seems pretty obvious that the article is talking about two different medals that are very similar in many ways, and completely different in many other ways. It seemed logical to me to split the article into two halves, each half with the same set of sub-sections. You, however, did not like that. You complained that the two sets of subsections were repetition. You reverted it back to one set of sections, each section having two subsections. I was tempted to point this out at the time, but felt that, as you seem to have taken a degree of ownership of the article, you obviously cared a lot more about it than I do.
I now see a similar scenario playing out between you and the anon, but unlike me, the anon has decided to ignore your opinions and stick with his/her logic. Presumably, like me, he saw/sees no point in engaging with you and your opinions.
Personally, I really don't care. But I must admit that I am finding it interesting to watch.
Well, what started as 2c worth seems to have turned into 20c worth, so I'll now quietly return to my vantage point out of the firing line and continue watching.
BTW: I'm not soliciting any engagement or response from you, and I won't be making any further comments.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
That the Lord President of the Council's announcement was the first announcement made anywhere is a fact; a fact never in dispute. The anon was therefore focusing on a non-existent issue when making the revert of my edit, and we're still doing so now. The point is, the Lord President of the Council's announcement was made specifically in relation to the British medal and no other, which I noted in my edit summaries: "specify which country" and "announcement related to UK medal and no other". Absent that tiny bit of information, readers can easily be led to believe the Lord Mandelson was making an announcement relating to both the British and Canadian medals, as though the two were the creation of the British government, the Canadian one being some regional variant. (Further, the final sentence of the same paragraph then reads as though both medals were made by a consortium of British small businesses holding royal warrants). We should be aiming for utmost clarity here.
The layout is another matter and I already expressed my concerns about dividing the article up as you did. I never said discussion on the matter was closed, yet you simply chose not to offer a counter argument or any other proposal, which generally leads one to believe you have no real problem with what I said. If you do, please feel free to express it in the section I created above. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
You're not very good at paying attention to what someone else said if it doesn't match your opinion, are you.
Restating myself somewhat differently: That's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But it's just your opinion, not fact. That doesn't make you "right". Other people have opinions that are different to yours. That doesn't make them "wrong".
As I said:
  • In terms of pure logic, (and nothing else), the addition of phrase "in the United Kingdom" is redundant because the context makes it blindingly obvious that the statement is referring to the UK.
  • As you seem to have taken a degree of ownership of the article, you obviously care a lot more about it than I do.
  • Personally, I really don't care. But I must admit that I am finding it interesting to watch.
  • I won't be making any further comments.
Pdfpdf (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, thank goodness for that final bullet point. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
And the value added by your last comment is?
I assume you've read WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:OWN, the five pillars, particularly WP:CIVIL, WP:EQ, etc. Oh. We mustn't forget WP:POINT.
Perhaps you should re-read them? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Have you, I wonder, what with the ownership accusations, snide questioning of my capacity for paying attention, inferences of arrogance and bullying on my part, ROFLs up above, and whatnot? If you want to pad your comments about content with all that, then please, hold up to what you said and don't comment further. Otherwise, let's just focus on the article; content, layout, or whatever. (Someone should be discussing these things, since the anon refuses to.)
You said, re. the addition of clarifying info related to the announcement of the British medal, "the context makes it blindingly obvious that the statement is referring to the UK". However, again, that is not what I said was a problem. The issue is that the present phrasing doesn't make clear that the statement - the whole paragraph, actually - is referring only to a medal that relates only to the United Kingdom, not to a medal created by the British government for issue in other Commonwealth realms, with a Canadian variation of it. It's not a major issue, it's merely a case of the article being slightly confusing in one part; it's therefore simple to fix, which makes me puzzled by the resistance. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Have you, I wonder - Oh yes. A varying times. And I scan them again before I put references to them on talk pages, just to be sure I'm saying what I think I'm saying. what with ... - Fair comments. Never-the-less, from my POV, you do indeed seem to have displayed these characteristics at one time or another.
Otherwise, let's just focus on the article - Another fair comment. (But I will, of course, as you would by now expect of me, mention that I find the nature of some of your replies ... "not always helpful".)
(Someone should be discussing these things, since the anon refuses to.) - I guess I must be in agreement with you, because here I am discussing them with you.
You said ... - I'm confused by your reply. I said "the context makes it blindingly obvious". You replied "that is not what I said was a problem". But then you appear to go on to say what I interpret as, "the context does NOT make it blindingly obvious". So let's start again: I'm saying: "the context makes it blindingly obvious". Option a) You're saying: "No it doesn't". I'll reply: "Oh. Well, I guess I'll look at it again." Option b) You're saying: "Yes, I agree, but ... " If b), can you please clarify the "but ... "?
It's not a major issue - I wouldn't have thought so either, but it seems to be generating a lengthy talk page entry!
it's merely a case of the article being slightly confusing in one part - Hmmm. I don't find it confusing, but of the 6 billion other people in the world, I guess there must be at least some who might. So, I'll reply: "Oh. Well, I guess I'll look at it again."
which makes me puzzled by the resistance - (Independent of whether you agree with it or not), I'm hoping the above solves your puzzle for you. In my no doubt biassed opinion, I think your puzzle and my confusion are due to, on both sides, the reader extracting a different understanding from the words than that which the writer intended. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
(P.S. I was soliciting a reply here. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC))
Still waiting, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
arbitrary breakpoint[edit]

The anon has reverted yet again; this time removing italicisation placed as per WP:WORDSASWORDS and MOS:Ety. The given justification for the revert was "does not apply to inscriptions." Can the anon please point to where any such instruction is given? I don't see it anywhere. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Another case of poor communication on all sides.
I expect that, at first, like me, the anon could not work out what you'd changed, and did not understand what Design: italicise per WP:WORDSASWORDS and MOS:ety; meant. (I eventually worked out it meant, "change the apostrophe into a ' ".)
S/he did, however, understand "still waiting for a reason to be given at talk for the <small> fmt in relation to WP:FONTSIZE"
Rather than reply on the talk page, the anon replied in the edit comment: "does not apply to inscriptions".
(I suspect that the revert of ' back to apostrophe is unrelated to the edit summary.)
I hope that helps? Pdfpdf (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Not particularly. This anon is not an inexperienced editor; s/he's seems merely to be using anonymity to evade the revert and other editing restrictions the rest of us face. The anon is also capable of reading what's at the links. Moreso, s/he could easily engage in discussion with other editors here, to seek further explanation, if necessary. The anon has obviously so far chosen to do otherwise.
The test of your theory, I suppose, will lie in whether or not the anon reverts to remove the italics and restore the <small> formatting yet again and continues to keep away from this talk page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Not particularly. - Oh well - I tried ...
The test of your theory ... - Oh dear! Terribly sorry, but it looks like I stuffed up half of your test.
And I think you can pretty safely assume that the anon is not going to touch this talk page with a 40ft barge pole - ever. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
BTW: It's happened again; I misinterpreted you categorisation of "remove the italics". Sorry. Quite candidly, I'm fairly confident that you are the only person bothered by whether it's a single quote or an apostophe. Again, as I attempted to explain to you above, I think you can pretty safely assume that the anon couldn't care less and is not going to touch it. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Except that, as per the usual, the anon just did.
Let's look at the two issues separately:
The italics: WP:WORDSASWORDS tells us to "[u]se italics when writing about words as words". It seems self-evident that inscriptions are words, and they are written about in the article. Further, in relation to the Latin, spcifically, from MOS:Ety: "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English."
The <small> formatting: From WP:FONTSIZE: "Editors should avoid manually inserting large and small fonts into prose." You noted the regular size all-caps appeared as "shouting"; which is possibly a valid criticism. But, is it reason enough to go against the guideline? If it is, then the font should be sized "as a percentage of the original font size and not as an absolute size." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. I'm not the IP's proxy! And by now, haven't you worked out the IP is not going to respond on this talk page?
Also, it's effing obvious to me that the IP has responded to your question, and asking the same question again is not going to get you a different answer.
Similarly, you have seen my reply. And you'll get the same reply next time you ask the same question.
Yes, you've told us your POV / interpretation. No, the IP and I have two other PsOV / interpretations, and neither of them support yours. i.e. We disagree with you.
So, what are we going to do about it? You'll surely have noticed that I've largely withdrawn from editing. If you continue to make changes for which you are the only advocate, then you will continue to see your changes ... changed.
It's probably time to put down the manual and devote your energy to solving the problem, rather than to proving to yourself that you are right. Pdfpdf (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
That isn't helpful. What is it you disagree with, exactly? That the Latin in the article is Latin? That the descriptions of the medals' inscriptions are words about words? That we editors should avoid inserting large and small fonts into prose? That, if font sizes are to be altered, it should be done as a percentage, rather than an absolute size? One can't simply say "I disagree" to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or just edit as though one is a special person free to do as one pleases. Disagreements should be settled here, by responding to the points raised and questions asked, not by edit warring, which a couple of your comments seem to say is appropriate behaviour. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
And your response in no way even attempts to answer: "So, what are we going to do about it?"
(So not only isn't it helpful. It is of no use in answering the question.)
One can't simply say - "One" can do and say whatever one pleases! (And most people generally do ... )
Why don't you stop preaching and start devoting your efforts towards working collaboratively towards a solution?
Your repetitive insistance that yours is the only POV, and everybody else is wrong, it tedious, and I'm losing patience in trying to have a sensible conversation with you.
I seem to recall it was you that mentioned we should be working towards improving the article. Note: "we".
I imagine it will probably offend you if I point out that you don't practice what you preach. Well, that's unfortuante. But never-the-less, you do not seem to practice what you preach. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
And just how the f*ck is one supposed to work collaboratively with editors who refuse to collaborate? Either by not engaging in discussion here, or engaging but answering no question and rebutting no point. If you could enlighten me on how to carry out that particular feat, I'd be most appreciative! --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────LOL! I concede that your reply is more than a "fair comment". Sorry, but in the absence of functional magic wands or crystal balls, as much as I'd like to be able to do so, I'm afraid I'm unable to enlighten you. My sincere apologies for my inadequacies.
So, what are we going to do about it? Pdfpdf (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it might be worthwhile to go through each issue one at a time. Some might be quick, in the given circumstances wherein it seems like there's only three consistent editors of this page, and one, as we know, refuses to participate in discussion. The outcome of some will also affect more than just this article.
How about we first consider the itliacisation of the medals' inscriptions? Do you think the article's descriptions of them can be considered as "writing about words as words"? If yes, then you agree with me, which, I'd say, means the italicisation should be restored. If no, then you agree with the anon, and the italicisation therefore should remain undone. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Chronology[edit]

There's a rather inconsistent adherence to chronological order in this article. The usual anon editor seemed at one point to think it was important to stick to a chronological order([1]), but then seems to have changed his mind ([2]). Can we establish a way to keep this information organised? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it. But I wish you good luck. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the edit warring anon appreciates your support. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
a) WP:AGF b) It's nice to be appreciated! But: c) I really don't think the anon cares what either of us thinks. And d) I'm in no way, and have at no time, "supported" the anon.
However, I do have my own POV, and some of it overlaps with the anon's POV.
What I have tried to point out to you twice now is that the anon is NOT going to engage in conversation with you on this talk page, and you are wasting everybody's time, most particularly your own, by suggesting he should/might/will/ought to/etc. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
What I said was said with tongue planted half in cheek; half because you are telling me to quit trying to discuss anything and either a) settle disputes here by endlessly reverting the anon's reverts until someone gives up, or b) just give up and let the anon's edits stay, despite my objections, because the anon will just revert, anyway. That's pretty much giving tacit support to the anon's edit warring ways.
It might well be a waste of time trying to start here a conversation with the anon about some content dispute involving him. However, if he won't follow WP:BRD and start a discussion after his bold edits are reverted, then someone has to as the first step of the dispute resolution process. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Article arrangement[edit]

There is a rough consensus for the following things:

  • The content of the three articles shouldn't be split after nationality.
  • The articles should contain the following section headers in that order, if information is available in reliable sources: "Design", "Eligibility and allocation", "Precedence in each realm" and "History".
  • The content of the "Design", "Eligibility and allocation", "Precedence in each realm" sections should first ordered alphabetically (with the exception of the United Kingdom, which should be listed first) and than chronologically. The name of the countries should be marked with bolded text.

Regards, Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 14:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Relating to Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal, Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal, and Queen Elizabeth II Silver Jubilee Medal: How should the information about the different versions of each medal be arranged in each article? Alternately, should the articles be split into separate articles for the medals issued by each country? 17:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


It's my opinion that the articles can stay as they have been: each covers the two or more medals created to mark the same event. However, there should be some consistently applied rules guiding the arrangement of the information in each article section. I suggest:

  • For the 'Design' section: chronological order should be adhered to if we have information such as the dates designs were set by order-in-council or publicly revealed. If the dates for such events are the same or otherwise, then alphabetical order of countries should be used, with the United Kingdom's proper name regarded, rather than the casual "Britain".
  • For the 'Eligibility and allocation' section: chronological order should be adhered to if we have information such as the dates the eligibility criteria, distribution numbers, etc. were set by order-in-council or publicly revealed. If the dates for such events are the same or otherwise, then alphabetical order of countries should be used, as per above.
  • For the 'Precedence in each realm' section: Alphabetical order by name of country.
  • For the 'History' section: Chronological order.

I am, however, not entirely against the idea of splitting the articles along national lines and turning the existing articles into disambiguation pages. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If the separate medals are to be covered in the one article, I agree that the top level headings should be 'Design', 'Eligibility and allocation', etc. However, each countries information should be captured under a second level heading (and then chronologically where appropriate). Adopting a pure chronological approach under the top level headings will result in intermixing of information on different countries which will just be confusing. In this instance, I am not comfortable that alphabetical by country is appropriate. Within the Commonwealth, the origin of Jubilee/Coronation medals is the United Kingdom. Equivalent medals in other Commonwealth nations are derivative. Accordingly, I think it more appropriate to list UK first then any other Commonwealth nations alphabetically. Within Commonwealth ODM, relegating the UK to near the bottom of a list is inappropriate. If this is contentious, then it may be better to split the articles and include appropriate cross-references. AusTerrapin (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Some Commonwealth reamls other than the UK have issued to their citizens the medals created by British Order-in-Council, or the British government orders have allocated a certain number of the British medals for presentation to citizens of Commonwealth realms other than the UK. Canada has, since the Silver Jubilee, only ever awarded to its citizens medals created by Canadian Order-in-Council, not British. Otherwise, I take your points.
However, I foresee that, if your proposal were adopted, there would be multiple identical second level headings, which, I think, isn't a good thing. (Doesn't it potentially cause confusion when linking; i.e. Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal#Canada would land at the first of the three 'Canada' second level headers, when hitting the second or third was maybe intended...?) Perhaps bolded text could simply be used in place of level headers. If so, I maintain that alphabetical order should be employed. It is neutral and avoids granting contentious "special status" to countries for subjective reasons. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I acknowledge the heading issue - your suggested solution is sound. Where countries are using the medal as issued by the UK, common sense needs to be exercised as to whether there is a need to raise a separate country specific entry or whether a capture all sentence can be added to the UK section (the latter is likely to work well for the design eg, 'Countries A, B and C use the UK issued medal.') Re the sequence of countries, in Commonwealth ODM, there is nothing particularly unusual with listing the UK first - it is the parent honour system to the honour systems in much of the rest of the Commonwealth. To the extent that the UK design is being used by other countries only lends weight to this position. It is a position informed by historical convention with this field which is decidedly less arbitrary than a pure alphabetical approach. If we were talking about a world list of medals (rather than a Commonwealth list), then a pure alphabetical approach would be conventional and appropriate, but in this instance we are not. As I said earlier, I am not averse to separate, cross-linked articles which would avoid any conflict between peoples perceptions of what is subjective, conventional, etc in the article. There are precedents for doing it either way. If we go down the path of splitting the article, if there are three or more designs, I would suggest the main article becomes a dab page with each design tagged for the country of origin. If there are only the two designs, then per the argument that the UK is the parent honour system and in keeping with the approach taken in other similar ODM articles, the UK design would stay put with a hat note to a new article for the Canadian design. AusTerrapin (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, I understand your reasoning, but I remain unconvinced the 'UK-first' policy is the right one to follow with these articles. It always sets up a misleading 'primary-subsidiary' appearance which requires subjective arguments to justify. It also seems odd to me that information about a medal that was created first comes second to information about another medal simply because the latter was issued by the UK.
Maybe splitting the articles is the way to go. I'd like to see if there are any other opinions/suggestions, though. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Have arrived here by request for comment. I declare my Australian nationality. I agree with AusTerrapin that articles should not be split for reasons other than excessive length; the topic is hardly earth-shaking and should really be very succinct. Also agree that the UK should precede other Commonwealth countries as originating or 'mother' realm; we are talking about the Queen's honours, not a matter of affirmative action, democratic voting, or any quaint notion of equivalence. That said, I don't want to argue the case, just to present what seems logical to me from an encyclopaedic point of view. Peter S Strempel | Talk 12:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
We're talking about at least two queens' honours, in reality. The equivalence between those two queens was set before the person who is those two queens became a queen, since the year she was born, actually: by the Balfour Declaration in 1926 (and later cast in law with the Statute of Westminster 1931). The UK is generally the "senior" realm and age of country is one way to order the information. But, age of country doesn't seem particularly relevant to an article about medals.
I also don't see where AusTerrapin objected to splitting the articles except for when they've become too long... --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the medals have different names. Consequently (and in view of the fact that they have different designs, different award criteria and a different issuing authority) I now believe that they do not belong in the same article - to share an article they need to be essentially the same medal (albeit some minor variation may be allowed), in this case I no longer believe that they are essentially the same medal. They are related so it is appropriate to use a hat note and/or 'see also' link to draw the connection between the two. The fact they have different names helps eliminate the article title dab problem as they each go with their proper title. AusTerrapin (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


award[edit]

Who in the Royal Family recieved the Medal and why? It is noted on the pages of the Duke of Edinburgh (both the UK and Canadian ones), the Prince of Wales, the Dukes of Cambridge, York, Gloucester and Kent, Prince Harry, the Princess Royal, the Earl and Countess of Wessex, the Duchess of Gloucester and the Prince Michael of Kent, but not the Duchess of Cornwall, the Duchess of Cambridge, Princesses Beatrice and Eugiene of York, the Duchess of Kent, Princess Michael, or the Princess Alexandra the Honourable Lady Oglivy. Is it restricted to the children and male grandchildren of the Queen? Why the Countess of Wessex (yes, the Queen's favourite in-law), but not two future Queens, the Duchesses of Cornwall and Cambridge? How does the Queen (or the Cabinet or whomever) decide who gets the Medal and who doesn't? 74.69.8.195 (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I would believe that they actually have the medal, however seeing that they rarely wear medals, we have not seen them actually wear their QDJM. When they will wear a military uniform as the Princess Royal due to an honorary appointment, we will see if they have it or not. Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully I would believe except I was going by the notes on their Wikipedia pages. I would assume there was some type of press release or something that announced it, since I don't believe I've ever seen the Countess of Wessex or Duchess of Gloucester wearing a uniform. And just b/c they may have honorary ranks, doesn't mean they would necessarily wear the medal, since it's a civic, not military appointment. But I suppose your guess is as good as mine. 74.69.121.132 (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can confirm that HRH the Duchess of Gloucester has been awarded with the DJM: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1gQSf_Jjg5c/UdiqGYNch5I/AAAAAAAAAH4/GoThqgCl5tk/s320/Glocester.jpeg. HRH the Countess of Wessex as a Honorary Canadian Colonel has worn the uniform of the Canadian Army, however, at this time, I have only seen Her Royal Highness wear CADPAT uniform. I would be surprised if any member of the Royal Family has NOT been awarded with the Diamond jubilee medal. Only time will tell. Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Caribbean realms[edit]

I have started to read Dr. Christopher McCreery's book "Commermorative Medals of the Queen's Reigne in Canada, 1952-2012 (http://www.dominionofcanada.com/medals.html) on page 124 writes about the Caribbean Realms. Therefore, the 8 Caribbean Realms of Her Majesty the Queen would therefore have their own Jubillee medal, following the Canadian example of producing it by themselves. Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That information you inserted needs proper attribution; the link you provided ([3] doesn't support the material. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Here is the exact text found in Dr. McCreery's book that I have mentioned above on the issue of the Caribbean issued DJM:
The Criteria for bestowal of the Diamond Jubilee Medal of the Caribbean Realms will be set individually by each of the eight Caribbean islands, and medals will be presented by the governor general in each country. The number of medals awarded will likely be small given that the combined population of the participating countries is just over 3.8 million people.
A rhodium-plated 32mm medal with a claw-footed syspender, the obverse of the Diamond Jubilee Medal of the Caribbean Realms bears the same effigy of the Queen used for the United Kingdom issue and is circumscribed by the text THE DIAMOND JUBILEE QUEEN ELIZABETH II. The reverse bears the Royal Cypher in the centre, with the text CARIBBEAN REALMS and the dates 1952-2012. The ribbon is the same as the for the Canadian and United Kingdom medals, with the exception that the 2 mm central stripe is black.
I will soon post the image of this medal found in McCreery's book, however I would believe that the information that I have posted is credible, seeing Dr. McCreery's is a specialist in the issue of honours. Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Here is the picture:
File:Picture about the Caribbean Realm's Diamond Jubilee Medal.png
File:Reverse-Caribbean Realms EIIR Diamond Jubillee Medal.png Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
The following site: http://www.caribdirect.com/2012/04/24/grenada-diamond-jubilee-medal/ has an image of the Caribbean version of the Diamond Jubilee Medal. Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 03:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for providing the ribbon image. Unfortunately, any image of the medal you take from a book or a website is inadmissable, since it won't be a free image (i.e. without copyright) and its use won't meet WP:FUR. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for accepting the information that I have found within Dr. McCreery's book. I agree with your above statement that copyrighted materials cannot be used. I will try to find a free picture of the Caribbean medal and post it. Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 23:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This article needs to be split.[edit]

This article needs to be split into Queen Elizabeth II's Diamond Jubilee Medal (Canada), Queen Elizabeth II's Diamond Jubilee Medal (Caribbean Realms), and Queen Elizabeth II's Diamond Jubilee Medal (United Kingdom), as they are all separate awards instituted under three separate warrants - albeit, sharing the same title - Queen Elizabeth II's Diamond Jubilee Medal - (203.211.76.88 (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC))

I believe that it would be wrong to have a different article for each medal on basis of country. Having all the information on one page, saves space, and gives a chance to examine all three medals without having to see a different page. Also, once I receive them, I will own a miniature model of all three versions, therefore, pretty soon, we will have a picutre of all three medals. Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Cross of Valour[edit]

Do the recipients of the Canadian, Australian and Papua New Guinean Cross of Valour (and the New Zealand Cross) awards that replaced the George Cross recieve one of Diamond Jubilee medals? You would have thought they would qualify for it, as the Cross of Valour and New Zealand Cross are supposed to be equivalent to the George Cross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.220.13 (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC) As for in Canada, all recipients of the George Cross (and we only have one Canadian that has this medal, Colonel Arthur Richard Cecil Butson, GC, OMM, CD), all recipients of the Canadian Cross of Valour and all recipients of the Order of Canada have been recipients of the Diamond Jubilee Medal. - Source, Christopher McCreery's book on the subject. 207.61.145.4 (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

In Australia, all living VC and CV winners were awarded the Diamond Jubilee Medal. AusTerrapin (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)