Talk:Victoria Cross (Canada)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Victoria Cross (Canada) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic star Victoria Cross (Canada) is part of the Victoria Cross series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 25, 2010.

Vimy Ridge VC?[edit]

Did this award happen as predicted? The article is now out of date and needs updating by someone who knows. Loganberry (Talk) 01:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Candidate[edit]

I'm putting the article on hold, for the following reasons :

  • No references in the opening paragraphs
  • Origin Section needs more information

-FlubecaTalk 00:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Passed[edit]

This article has passed the GA noms. A few suggestions to improve this article would be to add a few more references, and add more information to various sections. If you disagree with this statement feel free to take it to WP:GA/R. Tarret 01:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[1] and [2] need a WP:FURG. I don't see how it passed with this. Giggy UCP 01:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the coin image, since it wasn't discussed in the article. I am planning on replacing the lead image photo with a image of the Canadian medal. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:WIAGA the images only need to comply with WP:FUC and have a proper license tag. From the looks of it they do. Also I don't see WP:WIAGA mention WP:FURG anywhere. Although this issue may come up in a WP:FAC; this is GA which is supposed to be a less strict process. Finally if you still disagree feel free to take this to WP:GA/R. Tarret 02:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:FURG is part of WP:FUC. And to quote from WP:FURG, Non-free images that do not include both a fair use tag and a detailed fair use rationale may be deleted after seven days, so it's way above the GA criteria ;) Giggy UCP 03:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
In case your wondering why I passed it after you put it on hold well in my opinion it was good enough for GA and there isn't anything saying (though there should be something about it) that another user can't pass an article that was put on hold earlier. Tarret 21:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Delisted GA[edit]

Wow, look at those internet drama. First put on hold by Flubeca, then passed by Tarret after 43 mins, 9 mins later Giggy spotted FUR problem, couple of days later Tarret replied why he took over the review. Anyways, back to topic, Flubeca's points are valid, I am concerned about no reference on the lead section "receipent gets $3000 per year". Since nobody improved it drammatically for over a month, I'm going to delist it now. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The point about the "$3000 per year" is referenced later in the article. Gimmetrow 04:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, i have notified User:OhanaUnited about it on User talk:OhanaUnited#Victoria Cross (Canada) her talk page. I have asked for clarification on the specific reasons why it was delisted. Woodym555 09:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The fair use issue was taken care of a while ago. 13:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zscout370 (talkcontribs).

Good article review[edit]

Due to the rather ignominious circumstances of its promotion and subsequent delisting i have put it up for GA review. Woodym555 10:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposing Move[edit]

This page was recently moved from Victoria Cross (Canada). The move was obviously made for the sensible reason of wanting it to be similar to Victoria Cross for Australia and Victoria Cross for New Zealand, however, I think the move was ill-advised. In a discussion here the correct naming convention for the VC for which Canadian service personnel are eligible was discussed. The only official reference available was the Medals Yearbook 2005 which called the New Zealand VC the Victoria Cross for New Zealand, the Australian one the Victoria Cross for Australia, and the Canadian one the Victoria Cross (Canada). I suggested that the Canadian VC was in fact merely called the Victoria Cross, but that (it differing from the British Original) it has been noted as Victoria Cross (Canada) to avoid confusion - i.e. the Australians award the Victoria Cross for Australia, New Zealand awards the Victoria Cross for New Zealand, and both Canada and the UK award something called the Victoria Cross. Calling the page Victoria Cross (Canada) is therefore most likely accurate - the (Canada) bit is for disambiguation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadparty (talkcontribs)

When I made the article in 2005, I had no idea if articles were made about the other VC's for NZ and AU. Plus, since there was an article on the Victoria Cross already, I pretty much had to put it at Victoria Cross (Canada) so people will not be confused. Plus, as the poster above said, this VC is different from the other ones in minor ways, including how it is awarded (it can be awarded during peace time). I support the move it to the original name I put this article at. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


$3,000 per year was abolished in 1990. See —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That link says The payment of gratuities and annuities pursuant to section 3 shall be made in the following manner:
(a) holders of the Victoria Cross or the George Cross shall receive an annuity of $3,000;
So, it seems that it wasn't abolished. Woody (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
no, it was revoked in 1990. See first paragraph of the text you cited. The VC recipient would not receive an annuity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph says the 1990 Order replaces the 1987 one. The 1990 order says holders of the VC and GC get a $3,000 annuity. --G2bambino (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
No monetary amounts are ever given to recipients of Canadian honours. The paragraph of the canlii document reads: "His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Treasury Board, is pleased hereby to revoke the Gallantry Gratuities and Annuities Order". This means the Order is no longer in effect. Please stop changing back the text with incorrect information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you thick? The very source you're turning to goes on to say "...and to make the annexed Order respecting gallantry awards, in substitution therefor." [Emphasis mine.] The 1990 Order replaces the 1987 one. --G2bambino (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The annuity in the 1990 Gallantry Awards Order refers to the Victoria Cross. It does not refer to the Canadian Victoria Cross which was not established until 1993. Anthony Staunton (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting[edit]

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. I see no date link that is useful to the reader in this article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Stop voting, it devalues your argument. Personally, I have never seen the problem with autoformatting. If you have think there are problems with autoformatting inconsistency, then disable the preferences, that is what I have done. I don't particularly see the fuss over it and don't think it should be removed, no matter how watered down MOS/MOSNUM etc has become. It is not about the relevancy of the link, it is about providing date-autoformatting for users. Woody (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't understand who you think is voting and devaluing his argument. Tony has made a proposal and I replied with my support and reasoning. It is a discussion. If that discussion results in a consensus, then it can be implemented; otherwise the status quo should be retained. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I think you voted when you typed out Support and then enboldened it. There is no need to do that if it wasn't a vote, let your arguments, your discussion and your reasoning stand on its own. Tony is going about this the wrong way and he knows it, we cannot change each article one at a time, given that we have over 2,000,000 of the things. Nor can we go by FA, we have 2000 of those. This has to be sorted at somewhere in the myriad of MOS pages and then decreed on the rest of us. Otherwise, we will be more inconsistent than before. Woody (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
        • It is commonplace to summarise your position at the beginning for clarity and ease of following the discussion. I don't see any reason why Tony may not go about it this way if he chooses. The Manual of Style now says date-formatting is optional; each instance can therefore be debated on its own merits. You may consider him fighting windmills or whatever by that method of operation but it's a valid way to work. I suppose it may be more productive to continue the evolution of MOSNUM to state that date-linking should only be done when the corresponding date article is relevant and then change en-masse but that's not the state of the wiki at the moment. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE, and for crying out loud, stop doing this on individual pages. This is a site-wide change and should be discussed at the relevant MOS. I'm trying to assume good faith, but you know full well that this is not the appropriate venue. Stop it. Prince of Canada t | c 22:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - the objections to autoformatting are wildly overblown and the system serves a useful purpose for people with preferences set. I know some dislike the highlighting, but until and unless the software is changed to use another formatting method, this is what we have, and you should not keep bringing this up on individual articles - this is disruptive and WP:POINTy. -- Arwel (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah, here are the censorship police. So no one's allowed to talk about it now, let alone put a point of view (that's "pointy", is it?). If you feel emotionally fixated on bright-blue underlined splotches, you're welcome to say so, but I think we'd appreciate it if that emotion didn't spill over into attempts to intimidate those who agree with message here. Tony (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is saying that you're not allowed to talk about this. What we are saying is that you are discussing this in absolutely the wrong venue(s), and you know it. Trying to assume good faith here, but you're making it very difficult. Prince of Canada t | c 17:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Direct all future comments to Talk:Victoria Cross, which given that this is part of a Featured Topic, should be more appropriate than here. Either that or MOS/MOSNUM if you dare. Woody (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with that recommendation. Discussions about changes to Victoria Cross (Canada) should take place on this page. General discussion about date wikilinking should take place on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


This article needs a creation and a design section, as I know for a fact that the Canadian VC was designed differently, and created with different metals than the Great Britian VC. I can provide some images if that is what is required, or maybe some references, but this is needed. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND talk 03:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well if you've got the references and such... be bold, no? Prince of Canada t | c 04:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a design section, it is at Victoria_Cross_(Canada)#Appearance. You can add more about the original of the Canadian VC at Victoria_Cross_(Canada)#Origin. You can do this as long as you have sources and citations to back it up. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, as Zscout says, the sections are already there. Since I wrote this a while ago, I know they have released an actual medal, the makeup of the metals wasn't known when I wrote it. If you don't want to write it, can you give us the sources? Regards. Woody (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Canadians & Newfoundlanders[edit]

Aren't Newfies Canadians by definition? ColDickPeters (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Not prior to 1947, no. Prince of Canada t | c 16:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Notes (of the foot type and others)[edit]

I've retitled the notes and footnotes sections as per WP:REFNOTE, which states, in particular, that "A separate section containing references is usually given the title 'References', while the explanatory notes section retains the 'Notes' title." As for the bibliography, as I explained in my edit summary, its contents are not, as far as I can tell, references for the article, but are instead there for further reading on the subject; I removed from that section books that are already present in the references. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 11:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

While this wasn't one of the recent changes, is there any reason why all the refs and notes are enclosed in "small" html tags. I don't know of any other article that does this, it makes them quite hard to read on my monitor. David Underdown (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
In terms of the footnotes, Miesianiacal and I had a VC discussion on his talkpage about it. In terms of "small" that is part of {{reflist}}; <references /> use large font. Reflist seems to have become the standard use due to the sheer size of the references if they are in large font on articles such as Victoria Cross where there are over 80 references. Regards, Woody (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we're slightly at cross-purposes, the first time a reference appears, looking in edit mode I see <small><ref>{{Citation| last=Reynolds| first=Ken| title=Pro Valore: Canada's Victoria Cross| place=Ottawa| publisher=Queen's Printer for Canada| page=40| edition=2| url=| accessdate=31 July 2009| ref=CITEREF_Reynolds}}</ref></small> every other usage of the ref tag also seems to be enclosed in small tags. This makes the [1] and so on you get for each reference exceedingly small and difficult to read. David Underdown (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, Oui, Je comprends, so I have removed them. I could see no reason for them and I think they go against WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Regards, Woody (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how it's so small as to be difficult to read; in fact, as I noted at my talkpage, it's the present arragement, wherein baseline spacing is uneven - a rather big no-no in print typesetting - depending on the presence or absence of an inline reference tag, that makes the article(s) difficult for me to read. This appears as such on all screens I use. I'll try to get some screenshots later (this is a somewhat new computer I'm using). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
If there's an issue with the standard ref tags, it would be better to get them fixed at source, project wide. Adopting ad hoc fixes for individual articles simply makes editing harder. You may find it OK, but I was struggling, and though I routinely wear glasses, my sight only needs minimal correction. David Underdown (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I attempted that, but received no assistance. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

To offer another explanation: I've restored my note format, as it automatically numbers the notes, as opposed to Woody's method, which requires manual tracking to make sure a note's number matches the order of its corresponding inline tag. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Award by ballot[edit]

The Criteria section seems to suggest that the Canadian VC can be awarded by ballot to representative officers and men in unit which has distinguished itself. This was part of the original Imperial Warrant but as a practice was discontinued around WW1. Has this been revived for the Canadian medal, or is it there in error? The provided reference merely quotes the original Warrant, with no specific reference to Canada or indeed to the fact that Imperial balloted awards were discontinued.

Xdamrtalk 00:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, provision for ballot certainly remained in the 1931 Royal Warrant, viz The London Gazette: no. 33700. p. 1887. 20 March 1931., even if none were awarded under that provision.
According to this, The London Gazette: (Supplement) no. 54840. p. 8395. 21 July 1997., the current warrant for the (Imperial) VC is that of 30 September 1961 (as amended), but I've haven't maanged to trace the publication of that yet to see if the provision does actually remain in force, albeit unused. Really we do need to trace a copy of the Canadian Warrant, it must have been published somewhere. David Underdown (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Unkown soldiers[edit]

There seems to be some confusion about the awarding of medals to Unknown Soldiers: A couple of times now, editors have changed the text to: "The American Unknown Soldier is presented the Medal of Honor while the British Unknown Soldier is presented the British Victoria Cross." This is not the case, however; in fact, the opposite is true: The American Unknown Soldier was presented with the British Victoria Cross while the British Unknown Soldier was presented with the Medal of Honor. It was an exchange of medals between nations, not nations awarding themselves medals. The simple exchange of decorations does somehow appear more complex than it actually was; but, we must be careful not confound ourselves and, consequently, Wikipedia readers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page, the last paragraph is explaining on should the Canadian VC be presented to the Canadian Unknown Soldier. I cannot attest to what the British do, but in the in the USA, we award the Medal of Honor to the Unknown Soldier of the USA (while do we give it also to the British Unknown, but that is not relevant for this specific article). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The sentence, it seemed to me, was intended to show how the Canadian unknown soldier differed from his British and American counterparts in that each of the latter had recieved from foreign nations their highest bravery decorations: The American Unknown Soldier received the British Victoria Cross on 11 November 1921,[3], and the British Unknown Soldier received the American Medal of Honor on 4 March 1921.[4] I only just found out, and was about to add in the article, that the US Unknown Soldier also received the Medal of Honor on 11 November 1921;[first link] so, it seems we were both correct, at least in terms of the American Unknown Soldier. I can't find anywhere that the British Unknown Soldier was ever awarded the British Victoria Cross.
Just for everyone's clarification, including my own:
  • American Unknown Soldier:
  • Received: British Victoria Cross, US Medal of Honor
  • Date: 11 November 1921
  • British Unknown Soldier:
  • Received: US Medal of Honor
  • Date: 4 March 1921
  • Canadian Unknown Soldier:
  • I just think it would be easier for the both of us to just not include the fact about the US and British Unknowns. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Mmm.. Well, perhaps the information is somewhat trivial. I won't object if you feel it's better left out. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
It was going to be a situation where we would have included all nations that award their Unknown Soldier with their top decoration or include none. I feel none is the better solution. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

criteria: detached body of individuals[edit]

Canada doesn't have and never has had Marines. Admittedly, there is some confusion as the Navy is often referred to as "Marine" in French, but if one is speak of a detached body of sailors, in English, they are referred to as "sailors", and not "marines".

I think the idea of the example is valid (ie. to explain a detached body), but the terminology would lead to confusion.

Anyone have any better ways to phrase it? CyprianH (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Original lede: "The Canadian medal may be awarded more than once, however nobody has received it since its inception". Cart before the horse?[edit]

Surely by far the most important point is that nobody has ever been awarded the medal? That it can be awarded more than once is surely an academic point that doesn't belong in the lede, let alone as a non-sequitur introduction to the key point. I have deleted the "may be awarded twice" bit from the lede: if frequent editors believe it is a critical inclusion then at least reword it so that it follows the key point, not introduces it! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Opening paragraph[edit]

The first two sentences should be amended: Delete ‘military decoration’ an inaccurate contrived Wikipedia definition Delete ‘modelled on the original British Victoria Cross’ since the name Canadian Victoria Cross makes that obvious. Delete ‘several small changes’ which is an understated description for a significant design change and complete production change. (The inclusion of Canadian flora is subtle but the inscription on the scroll was a major change.) Delete ‘and the original are the’ and add ‘is’ since the last Canadian Victoria Cross recipient has died and the Victoria Cross instituted by Queen Victoria is not listed in the Canadian Honours System publication Wearing of orders, decorations and medals at The opening would then read ‘The Canadian Victoria Cross (French: Croix de Victoria), created in 1993, is the highest award of the Canadian honours system taking precedence over all other orders, decorations, and medals.’ Anthony Staunton (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


The anon who's persistently reverting should explain his/her objections here. -- MIESIANIACAL 02:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

My change was a compromise. It would be best if you both would accept it & move on. Seriously, why spat over something (her vs the) so minute. GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)