Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Royal Navy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 03:54, 30 March 2008.

List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Royal Navy[edit]

This list is part of the series of lists that I am creating and updating regarding recipients of the Victoria Cross. Australian recipients, Canadian recipients and List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality are already FL standard. This follows on from there. It is fully referenced, fully sortable and easily read. I believe it meets the FL standards now. I hope you do too. Woody (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
  • reference 7 is not referenced correctly.
    • Fixed formatting issue. Woody (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Done[reply]
  • I assume that the "date of action" refers to the date of the action for which the Victoria Cross was awarded. Although this may seem obvious, it might be mentioned above the table.
    • Added in sentence to lead. Woody (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, but put it (and everything following that sentence) below the title "Ship-based recipients". It is no introduction anymore.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I retitled the header as Recipients in line with the other lists. It was a remnant from when there were two lists. I have also reworded the lead to take in your suggestion. Woody (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see, but the table explanation is still in the introduction. Doesn't it fit better just above the table?--EdgeNavidad (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The standard order of the table is very strange.
    • It is ordered by Ship/unit, which given the name of the list seemed appropriate. Woody (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Notes" column does not need to be sortable.
    • Done. Woody (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • However, it doesn't hurt if the other columns are sortable ;) --EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The others have remained sortable. For me they are... Woody (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this list (if I counted correctly), 117 recipients are shown. This number does not show up in the introduction. Does this mean that the list is incomplete? I have no way to check this. The introduction does give some number, for example "83 awards given to Royal Naval personnel who serve on ships and in the Royal Naval Brigade". If these 83 persons are in the list, give them a color or something.
    • I have rephrased the lead now to separate ship based personnel from the other organisations listed. The list is complete as far as sources go.
      • Maybe include the total number of VC's given to the Royal Navy in the introduction? Now only the 1356 number is given, which might be confusing.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have reworded the lead to take in your suggestion. Woody (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Done[reply]
  • The link to [1] also gives ranks, is it not interesting to include these? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Victoria Cross does not distinguish between ranks, and I think the table would be too crowded if it did include them. Which rank would you use, the rank when they received the award, the rank they left the forces with? Woody (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you mean when you say that the VC does not distinguish between ranks? I'm afraid I'm not into the subject, so I can not tell which rank is more important. When I saw the list, the first thing I wondered what was the highest rank that got the VC, and what was the lowest rank. I don't think the table would become to crowded if you'd add them, I've seen larger tables that were still clear. I can not tell you what to do here, I just want to suggest the option ;) --EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My comment was that the VC is awarded to all ranks and that people usually concentrate on the act of valour and not on the rank. I will ask at MILHIST for opinions on it. Thanks for all your comments. Woody (talk) 18:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with Woody here - rank is irrelevant to the awarding of the VC, but EdgeNavidad does have a point. Readers unfamiliar with the subject (a few/some/many/most/indeterminate number) are aware that there was a large amount of class prejudice in the military during the 19th and early 20th centuries. Perhaps that is the most enduring impression of the British Armed Forces of that time period. There could be interest - whether it's related to the preceding or just general curiosity - in knowing the proportion of officer/NCO/OR recipients. But that could be addressed without precision and another field by explaining in a single sentence that all ranks are eligible for the VC. That is unless there really is a general interest in the rank of each recipient? SoLando (Talk) 16:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • As there are so few notes, I wonder if it wouldn't be better just to put the [refs] from the table column next to the recipients name?
  • I don't think a asterix and cell shading is necessary to highlight posthumous awards. The shading would do the job perfectly well by itself. I think the shading should extend across the row, too, not just in one cell.

That's it. --

ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 01:23, 25 March, 2008

  • Woody is expected - no pressure! ;-) - to return to Wikipedia tomorrow (27th). Combining shading and the asterisk to denote a posthumous recipient has been the convention for these lists so discussion should be deferred 'til Woody's return. Did that response have the connotations of an answer machine? ;-). SoLando (Talk) 12:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I'm back now. With regards to the posthumous column, they are both there to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Colours#Using_colours_in_articles in that we should not use colour as the sole conveyor of important information. In terms of "notes", it is a convention of recipients lists (admittedly one that I started) that we use a notes column to indicate information. I didn't want to clog up columns within the main table. Here it is very clear if there is special, specific information related to a recipient. I personally don't think it is an issue, but if you feel strongly about it, I am happy to change it in this list. Woody (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With 5 notes for 117 recipients it just looks like the rest have been overlooked. Re the shading and asterix, that was one part of the MOS I didn't remember, but I think bold or itallic text would be better than an itty bitty star.
  • Anyway, my suggestions came pretty late in the game and noone else commented on them so it's entirely your choice. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 16:10, 27 March, 2008
I hadn't thought about it that way, but I think most readers will see that the notes are simply exceptional circumstances. I think it better to maintain uniformity across all the lists. In terms of the star, italics were tried on a different list and rejected at FLC as not visible enough. I think the star is more visible than italics and bolding which may come under "Accessible" as well. Can I be forward and ask you, do these objections mean you Oppose this nomination? This has been up for a while and I would like to be ready to close either way soon. Thanks Woody (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. It meets the criteria, follows MOS, and like I said, I was late in the game in adding comments. If they were deal breakers someone else would have risen the point earlier. Support. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:19, 27 March, 2008
Thankyou for your comments and your review. Woody (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I think the manual of style calls for the ship names to be italicised, eg. HMS Arrogant.
  • Perhaps some of the links to ship disambiguation pages could be changed to point to the specific ship, but if it's to avoid too many red links then I don't have a problem with it. Benea (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done the italics I had forgotten about those. I am not aware that any dab pages are linked, I thought I had caught them all. Thankyou for your comments. Woody (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There were only two on closer inspection, HMS Harrier and Hazard which are quite new. I've fixed them up now, and now have no hesitation in Supporting. Benea (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, and during a further run through I found that several of the E and C boats existed, just without the full stop. Thanks again for your review. Woody (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, very close to supporting, but two questions:
    • 1 - is it standard British to say "World War Two"? If not, it should be changed to the more familiar "World War II".
    • 2 - Is there any method to the default sorting of the list? I can see none. --Golbez (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really think there is a standard notation anymore for the World Wars. I have converted it to World War I for this list as it is Commonwealth English standard. The default sort is by ship name which seemed reasonable given the title of the list. Woody (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah. Well then, I support. --Golbez (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • More British standard to say "Second World War" isn't it? Not some corny "sequel" to "WWI"? Same for the First World War.
    • Why is " in the face of the enemy." in italics?
    • Don't force image sizes, use the upright modifier per WP:MOS#Images.
    • "This along with the *, indicates that the Victoria Cross was awarded posthumously" - why the comma and why both?
    • Be consistent, you have World War One (yuck) and World War Two (yuck) in the lead and World War I (yuck) and World War II (yuck) in the table. Stick with the same names throughout, and preferably not the movie versions...!
    • A note should explain where/why non-conflict recipients were awarded VCs.
    • Make notes column centrally aligned.
  • So I can't support for now... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whilst, personally, I don't give a shit how you say itI don't see the difference, I have changed it to Second World War. It is in Italics to emphasise the point and the difference between this and the George Cross; though I have now changed it to quotation marks per WP:MOS. The upright code makes the VC image larger, I am not sure why, though on my screen it doesn't make much difference, it might do on others. As explained above: "they are both there to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Colours#Using_colours_in_articles in that we should not use colour as the sole conveyor of important information." I have now added in conflicts for all people, thereby avoiding that issue and I have centrally aligned the notes column. Woody (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have now refactored the comments as the tone was shocking. I am truly appreciative of your comments. Woody (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cool, well remind me to not review your articles again if it exasperates you so. I find the US version of WWI WWII particularly annoying but your tone more so. Sorry to have upset you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A great list which meets all the criteria. --Nick Dowling (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Victoria_Cross_recipients_of_the_Royal_Navy&oldid=202134370"