Talk:List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients

Australian VC

I think we need to separate out the latest recipient as he has received what's techincally a separate medal (following the precedent for the NZ VC. David Underdown (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with that. I have added a ref for the time being to state that it was. If there are no objections I will do it 2 days from now. Regards. Woody (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Whether I would agree or not would be a function of what "separting out" actually means.

(In one sense, by virtue of the ref, he is already "separated out". However, I expect you have something "more separate" in mind.)

Hence, what form of "separation" do you have in mind? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Out of the table and into the Lead. Woody (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In the case of the list of living recipients, we do list the hodlers of the separated VCs, but with a note. We probably ought to look at the categorisation scheme too. David Underdown (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Presumably the New Zealand wiki community have already addressed this issue? (I haven't yet looked I will do so soon.) What might be the reason(s) why we would do it differently? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(P.S. Have the Canadians awarded a VC yet? I don't think so, hence not much help there ... Pdfpdf (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

To be honest the Willie Apiata stuff was originally dealt with by the same people that are doing it now. (Me, David...) I think we need to distinguish between the two on the categorisation scale now, especially if more are to be awarded. The trouble is, most news organisation barely distinguish between the two and the Governments don't seem to be either, especially given that they are the same metal. (And no, the Canada one has not been awarded, but that is a separate medal, which makes it easier to distinguish.) Regards. Woody (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless you need help, it sounds to me like my best move is to get out of your way and let you get on with it. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

So, if/when VC for Oz #2 comes along, you'll create a separate table? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(Though if it doesn't happen for another almost 40 years ... )

I was thinking about that for a while. I think we would add a separate section to this page with a separate table if and when another VC is awarded. Given the amount and ferocity of operations at the moment I don't think we will have to wait for 40 years! ;) Woody (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect you may be right. Pdfpdf (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

copied from Talk:List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign

Who took it upon themselves....

to treat the "colonial" recipients of "separate" medals differently and not include them on this list. Are they of a different quality? There should be a discussion about it here. Albatross2147 (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be me amongst others, and there is a discussion about how separate commonwealth awards should be shown at Talk:List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients#Australian VC. They are separate awards now, and nowhere is colonial mentioned in this list and I resent what you are implying. Regards. Woody (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A discussion should have taken place and a consensus reached. That is the way Wp works. In the public's mind the awards are still the same thing. The military and governments seem to want to maintain all the traditions associated with the "original" medal eg. the pension and salutes. If "commonwealth" and "constitutional and historical ties" are to mean anything then the non-British awards for the same sort of acts and with the same name should be included in the lists albeit with explanatory notes. Of course if the non-British awards are not qualitatively the same then the lists should be separate. I am sorry your feathers have been ruffled - woodpeckers (which I assume the name alludes to) usually don't have feelings :-) In any event Admins should not be thin skinned let their dudgeon get too high. Albatross2147 (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

end copy

(Cross posted more or less from Talk:List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign) A proper discussion should have taken place and a consensus reached. That is the way Wp works. In the public's mind the awards are still the same thing. The military and governments seem to want to maintain all the traditions associated with the "original" medal eg. the pension and salutes. If "commonwealth" and "constitutional and historical ties" are to mean anything then the non-British awards for the same sort of acts and with the same name should be included in the lists albeit with explanatory notes. Of course if the non-British awards are not qualitatively the same then the lists should be separate. Albatross2147 (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there was no need for a discussion. It was simply being bold: there is no need for a consensus on simple issues such as this, especially when it is considered non-controversial. By separating out the recipients we are not saying anything about them, the awards, the traditions: we are simply stating the fact that these recipients are not receiving the same medal in legal terms as the other recipients in these lists. Wikipedia is not the place to decide whether to keep commonwealth constitutional and historical ties, that is for politicians. We do not measure things in qualitative measures, we report the verifiable facts and that is what has been done here.

Admin skins are the same as any editor's skins, questioning someones integrity is bound to ellicit a distinctly cold response. Regards, Woody (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I see the point you are making. Albatross2147 (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Australian VC - continuing ...

Regarding this edit, I know it seems stupid to have a table with only one entry, but maybe that's the only way to have an impact on people looking in the main table for Donaldson and not finding him there? What do others think? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am coming round to it, we will see what others think. Woody (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Past tense?

I think we need a clearer distinction between the Victoria Cross (with wording like "formerly awarded") and the Victoria Cross for Australia (which has replaced it). Radagast3 (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The VC is also no longer part of the Australian Honours Order of Precedence, having been replaced by the newer award. Radagast3 (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Breaking down your comments:

• "I think we need a clearer distinction between the Victoria Cross" - Probably.
• "(with wording like "formerly awarded") " - The ("Imperial") VC is still awarded (just not to Indians, Pakistanis, Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians and citizens of non-commonwealth countries.)
• "and the Victoria Cross for Australia (which has replaced it)." - "Replaced" is somewhat ambiguous. It has only been "replaced" in certain circumstances. For example, Keith Payne's VC has not been replaced by the VC for Oz.
• "The VC is also no longer part of the Australian Honours Order of Precedence, having been replaced by the newer award." - False. Australian Honours Order of Precedence#References, Ref 3: "Refers to both the Imperial Victoria Cross and the Victoria Cross for Australia." Order of Wearing, Page 5, Note 1. (Generally, foreign awards are worn after Australian awards, and postnominals of foreign awards are not recognised.)

Pdfpdf (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)