User talk:Xdamr/Archive 6

RE: Medal

Thanks! I thought something didn't look right, but the years seemed to add up. I'm impressed that you are willing to create a new article about that medal, and if you could supply me with a link when you get round to it so I can link up the Siege of Malakand article, that would be awesome! Thanks SGGH ^speak! 02:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh by the way I found a ref for that [citation needed] tag in the lead paragraph of the Jan Smuts article, as well as the ISBN for the Crawford book. Hope that helps! SGGH ^speak! 12:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How is it coming with India General Service Medal 1895-1902? I'm kinda hoping it will be coming along soon as it is the last redlink on the Siege of Malakand article and I'm hoping to start advancing it soon :) SGGH ^speak! 22:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't have as much free time over the weekend as I thought I might - but never fear, something will be up tomorrow :)

Xdamr^talk 23:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Xdamr, that's the last redlink of the siege article done! I leave the India Medal article in your capable hands SGGH ^speak! 21:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Australia Service Medal 1939-45

My source for the name was the Australian Government Order of Wear found here: Order of Wear (pdf)

The Australian Government site here lists the medal with the date.

At any rate... there is a bit of a disambiguation requirement from the post-war Australian Service Medal 1945-1975 and the current Australian Service Medal - although admitedly they are "Australian", not "Australia" PalawanOz 00:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, a bit of a contradiction there then. I suppose the issue could be resolved by referring to the Warrant, but unfortunately I don't have immediate access to it. Actually, I'm inclined to agree with you re. the disambiguation requirement. Australia/Australian are near enough identical. I managed to confuse myself for quite a while today, trying to insert a link to the Indian General Service Medal (1854)—eventually I remembered that it is in fact the India General Service Medal (1854). Anything that helps us avoid that is a Good Thing.

On another matter, I notice that you've been adding Category:Australian campaign medals etc to a number of Imperial awards. This is, as a matter of fact, entirely correct, but I was thinking that perhaps it might be wise to consider another approach. Having the UK, Aus, and NZ categories on a medal article is one thing—adding all the other Commonwealth/Empire countries though would tend to over-burden the page with categories. Likewise with the various Imperial Orders and Decorations. Perhaps it might be worth thinking about developing some sort of 'British Empire' categorisations to avoid this? I'll post a note re. this on the WP:ODM talk page, but I thought I'd mention this to you first as you seem to be doing the most work at the moment.

Regards, Xdamr^talk 00:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree re the over-categorisation comment - I was a little unsure at first about the Oz and Kiwi categories, but as there doesn't appear to be too many other Dominion/Colony sub-categories out there, I figured what the heck. The only problem with the "British Empire" category is that many of the nations left the British Honours system at different times. Eg - The QE2 Golden Jubilee medal is awarded to British and NZ, but the Silver Jubilee also included Australia (which didnt take up the Golden Jubilee medal). Putting "British Empire" (or similar) category may catch too many nations in the net.PalawanOz 00:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

True enough. Essentially pre WW2, the system was an undivided whole. The difficulty is getting WP's categorisation system to reflect this, while being responsive to the various nuances. After having wrestled with conceptualising the issue my head hurts, let me know if you fare any better :) In truth, so far as campaign medals go, we aren't at the point where it is a problem, at least not yet (no harm in aspiring to be 'future-proof' though). I suppose that the field of Orders and Decorations is where this issue is really the most pressing. We have categories for the modern NZ, Canadian, Aus awards - how can we integrate the Imperial honours with these national schemes? The VC, MC, DSO, etc, etc are just as significant a part of their past as for the UK, yet at the moment they are solely characterised as UK awards - failing to recognise the past unity of the system.

Xdamr^talk 01:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

NZ Campaign Medals

Thought I would let you know (since you were the original author), that I have expanded somewhat the New Zealand campaign medals page. I have taken as a reference the NZDF page for the Order of Wear to detail the full Kiwi medal list. PalawanOz 12:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Top notch bit of work. One thing you overlooked was bolding those medals which have been independently issued by NZ (per the article lead). I went through and sorted most of these out, but I'm not entirely certain whether UN/NATO medals qualify as being 'boldable'. They aren't strictly NZ awards, but they have been authorised for wear by NZ - how should we treat them? I've left them unbolded for now. I suppose this approach (bolding/unbolding) will serve well as a template for other Commonwealth countries's campaign medals pages; I've amended Australian campaign medals to follow this style.

Xdamr^talk 14:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops... thanks for that. I took the 'bolding' lead from the DPMC site - given the examples of 'distinctive NZ awards' on there, then the UN/NATO awards do not require bolding.PalawanOz 14:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thx

re Lucknow - thx - I think you are right Victuallers 16:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Samoan birds

Hi, the convention for islands/island groups is Endemic birds of...., not Birds of .... The category should have been renamed to Category:Endemic birds of the Samoan Islands (see Category:Endemic fauna of Hawaii and Category:Endemic fauna of the Galápagos Islands). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

How does this square with Category:Birds by country? These all (or just about all) seem to follow the 'Birds of ...' style, with no 'Endemic's to be seen. The primary motivation of this past nomination was to merge two overlapping categories. As I noted in my closing remarks, if you want to alter the conventional usage then feel free to raise that issue - I'm sure you'll receive a sympathetic hearing.

Xdamr^talk 23:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the convention is not applied to small island groups due to their isolation- see the examples above and Endemism. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 09:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Cross

This is in effect a copy of the featured article candidate page. There is a picture here; [1], that shows a red ribbon clearly different to the crimson seen today. In this article it suggests that it was changed to red. The RN blue ribbon is widely acknowledged to have been withdrawn due to the creation of the Raf. As to why the ribbon is crimson today, the answer is not known. Most sources such as Ashcroft simply say it evolved. The army warrants still state. As such i have amended the article and removed amalgamation and made it clear that it was orignally red but is now crimson.

I have also added in some more background information specifically relating to Victoria and Albert and some little bits of information surrounding the medal structure at the time (order of the bath). The whole article has also been supplemented by the original warrants and clauses which have been referenced. Any further comments would be welcome. Woodym555 19:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, yes i deleted that section as it had little relevance in that form. I suppose some sort of sandbox would be helpful. I think i was in quick delete mode due to the proliferation of edits related to the recent New Zealand award of the Victoria Cross (which incidentally should be on [[Victoria Cross for New Zealand instead). I dont think that the gratuities should have been listed there, possibly under the Annuity section. I think providing a history of gallantry awards in general is not what the Victoria Cross article should be about. It should provide a good background to the origin and history of the Victoria Cross. The information that you added on top of the existing information (that i left alone) is perfectly adequate in describing this in my opinion. It provides a good background including order of bath etc

If you want to provide a detailed history on Gallantry Medals of the United Kingdom then i suggest development of a new article related to this. Any comments? thanks Woodym555 17:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestion of a new article is certainly worthwhile and something which I will quite probably follow up on. I agree that too much detail over the history is not something we want here, and it may well be that what I put down could well benefit from pruning down to essentials. The practice of awarding of the MSM for gallantry is fairly significant though, and certainly bears inclusion along with CB's and Brevet promotions. I'll try and add this extra detail tonight, you can see what you think of it in toto tomorrow and we can discuss whether it is worth retaining.

Xdamr^talk 18:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Administrators open to recall

Hi. You deleted Category:Administrators open to recall after it was speedy renamed to Category:Wikipedian administrators open to recall (which itself would be better as Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall). As a result, its edit history is no longer publically available, and there are over 340 broken links. I've suggested that we {{category redirect}} the old page and restore its history; your help or input would be appreciated here. Thanks, Tim Smith 17:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, comments left on the talk page. --Xdamr^talk 01:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:MilitaryCrossRibbon.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:MilitaryCrossRibbon.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_22#Canadians_by_X_descent

On the X by Sindhi/Tamil, there was discrepancy. Tamils are found in both Sri Lanka and India. Sindhis may come from Pakistan or India (Hindu Sindhis were kicked out of Pakistan). Tamils from Sri Lanka are separate from the Tamils from India however, and Sindhis are divided on religious lines. It has come to my attention that you may have found this confusing, so I hope this has cleared things up and that you can delete those two as well.Bakaman 23:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Cross awarded to Canadian personnel

Is there a reference for the official name for the Victoria Cross awarded by Canada. The NZ Government calls it the Victoria Cross for Canada in its notes for Bill Apiatas award here [2]. I am yet to find the official warrant that declares the name and for the moment i am inclined to believe that it is called the Victoria Cross for Canada. If nothing else Victoria Cross (Canada) seems terribly informal for an award officially announced by the Sovereign's representative. I am asking you for a reference so that we can get the official name correct. Thanks Woodym555 14:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

My primary reference is the Medals Yearbook 2005 - not infallible, but pretty good most of the time. What makes this reasonably compelling (at least to me) is that the Yearbook observes the Victoria Cross for XXX form for Australia and NZ, but specifically names the Canadian award as Victoria Cross (Canada). Given that someone was switched-on enough to get the AUS and NZ ones right I'm prepared to give some credence to their naming of the Canadian VC.

The NZ press release is interesting, but then NZ is not Canada. I've some professional familiarity with how these government press releases are written so perhaps I'm slightly prejudiced, but I'm loathe to consider them as conclusive on anything!

Congratulations on the VC promotion by the way - an excellent achievement.

Xdamr^talk 19:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks with regards to the VC FA. I agree that the NZ Gov is unlikely to get everything correct, for that matter any government to get everything correct. I think we are going to have wait either for someone to win the award or for the letters patent to turn up. They are not listed under the Canadian Governement Hansard records and so it might be a while before we find out! At the moment i am prepared to take the Medals Yearbook 2005 as the reference for the name. If the warrant turns up and the name is wrong, i will correct the name accordingly and reference it on the talk page. Thanks for your help. Woodym555 15:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the best guess at present is that the Canadian medal is called the Victoria Cross (and to distinguish it from the "British" Award it is often written as the Canadian Victoria Cross or the Victoria Cross (Canada) - i.e. the name of the Award isn't Victoria Cross (Canada), the parentheses are just added for disambiguation; sometimes you'll even see Victoria Cross for Canada, because, well, it is a Victoria Cross, and it is for Canada. I would suggest that the Orders of Precedence for the New Zealand and Canada bear this out. New Zealand, New Zealand again, and Canada. We may not have the warrant creating the Canadian VC, but chances are high that whoever drew up the Canadian Order of Precedence would have been working from them. I know that individual research is frowned on by Wikipedia, but does anyone in Canada feel like making a freedom of information request (I assume such legislation exists in Canada) for a copy of the Warrant? Quadparty 01:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories for Deletion Issues

Hi, I see you've invested a fair amount of time and effort into the CFD process. I think the process desperately needs improvement (e.g., too much of a tendency toward deletion of useful categories, and potentially interested parties are not notified until after the fact) but am unsure about the best way to go about working to change CFD policy. If you have any thoughts on the matter, feel free to add them to my talk page. Thanks. --Osbojos 21:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:GeorgeCrossRibbon.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:GeorgeCrossRibbon.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:GeorgeMedalObv.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:GeorgeMedalObv.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Crimean War Medal

Sorry about that. So how do you tell the difference between the Russian, British, Turkish and British medal awarded to French forces Crimean War medals? Jack1956 08:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question - are you asking for information on the different medals individually issued by each of the major involved countries (UK, Russia, France, Ottoman Empire)? If that is what you want to find out about, I'm afraid I have to tell you that the French and Russian medals, as yet, have no articles and I'm afraid I lack the expertise to write them. Or did you mean something else?

Xdamr^talk 16:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, what I meant was, all of these countries issued a 'Crimean War medal', but you can't list them all as 'Crimean War medal' on Wiki. How do you tell the difference unless you call them 'British Crimean War medal', 'Russian Crimean War medal', etc? I was Chairman of the Crimean War Research Society for 12 years, and collected British medals to that War. When I get time I'll write articles on the other medals. Jack1956 20:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well for a start you wouldn't list them all as 'Crimean War medal' unless that was their actual, formal name. The British medal is formally named the 'Crimea Medal' and the Ottoman medal is (judging by my various books at least) the 'Turkish Crimea Medal', so each article can happily reside at their own individual pages without conflict. As I say, I'm not familiar with the Russian and French awards, but WP:ODM#Article naming reflects the current consensus vis-a-vis the names of foreign-language awards and naming conflicts.

It may be that so far as the French and Russian awards go the precise official name cannot be established. In this case the article names Crimean War Medal (Russia) and Crimean War Medal (France) would probably be the best, most consistent, choices. However, where the name has been established, as with the UK/Turkish medals, the article name ought not to be altered.

Hope that helps you out a little, Xdamr^talk 22:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Cross for New Zealand

Would you care to pass judgement on the article at its FA. Any suggestions as to improving it would be welcome. If you think it fails the criteria i will have to think about withdrawing the nom sonn as i don't see how i could combat User talk:AnonEMouse#Victoria Cross for New Zealand|AnonEMouse's problems]] without removing most of the content or moving the focus away from the actual Medal. Any suggestion welcome. Thanks Woodym555 12:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about this - as you can see by my contributions page, the past couple of months have been quite a barren time for me so far as Wikipedia participation goes. This summer has been quite a busy time for one reason or another. I will try and frame some suitable comments for the FA page. I have now taken a look at the arguments presented by AnonEMouse; having done so, I still incline towards the views I expressed on the WP:ODM talk page. As an interim measure, feel free to cite them if I take too long in posting my own response on the FAC page.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 14:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to be sorry, we all have different amounts of time available to edit Wikipedia. thankyou for letting me cite your comments and i intend to do so. Thanks for the time you have given. Woodym555 15:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)