Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Victoria Cross Reference migration

VC Questions

It's perhaps worth noting that asking questions about articles helps to illustrate changes which could usefully be made to the articles. It seems eminently reasonable to encourage people to ask questions using the talk pages of the VC articles, since that will help their quality to improve. Those who may wish to answer such questions can add the articles (which will add the talk pages as well) to their watch lists and check the watch list to be alerted to new questions. Jamesday 02:13, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

slow down...

I see you've already begun migrating some articles; some dont really fit into the 'pedia, have empty sections and such, see Arthur Louis Aaron. Also, that article begins with Arthur Louis Aaron (VC, DFM) was an English recipient of the Victoria Cross while it should begin with something like Arthur Louis Aaron (born-dead) was an englishman blalbalb who recived the VC cross, though the person is not noted for anything else it should still not begin like that.

I'm not pulling you down here, i think what you're doing is great ( i only recently saw the notice about this project ). But i think that we should slow down here, figure out how to migrate all this info, what Category: to put it all in an et cetera, the category should be named Victoria Cross recipients for example.

Again, great deed, but it will be easier on all of us if we make something like a template, guide and such about how to pull all this info from your site and then move it here.

Whatdoyouthink? --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:59, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

Sounds great - please go right ahead on the template front. Might not have their born-dead full dates. I should be able to change the vc ref site to modify its styled wiki format but I have very limited time. MikeC 13:27, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Could you provide a typical article that we can work on, i take it that most of these people are not notible at all besides having recived this award, so obviously this wont be normal biogrophies. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:07, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about making the raw data conform to wiki standards before importing it. With very few exceptions practically all Wikipedia articles have started out not really fitting into the Wikipedia standards. Articles are gradually massages into the standard. Mintguy (T) 10:03, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Copyright

Do you really own all the copyright for that content and are able to relese it under the GFDL? --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:33, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

Where it is not public domain it is noted as such - for example in people's photos and some submissions. MikeC 13:30, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As Mr. Chapman does not claim to be an attorney, it would appear that three things have not been adequately attended to:

_ _His giving "permission" accomplishes nothing. As he suggests when he says on the VC site that he has "created" it, he may have copyright protection for the compilation of the material, as do many compilations under US copyright. That is so whether he wants it or not.
_ _ To do what he says he intends, he has to place the material either in the public domain or under GFDL (which have slightly different effects, worth his weighing the difference between). Our contributors normally put it under GFDL by clicking save, which ensures that they knew or should have known they were placing the individual edit under GFDL.
_ _Giving "permission" in this vague way does not imply that he knows he is giving away virtually everything (IIRC, all except standing to challenge anyone else who tries to assert a copyright on it). The permission is thus likely to be invalid.
He may be stating a simple matter, but "Where it is not public domain it is noted as such" is a valid English sentence that states a legal head scratcher, since the antecedant of "such" tis be the most recent grammatically consistent possibility, "public domain": where it is not public domain, it is noted as being public domain? It may be sloppy enough to be treated as legally incapable of doing whatever it intends, and it may "poison the well" by putting in doubt future statements that aren't drafted by his legal counsel, even if they are better than this.
Since the statement about "public domain" seems to be trying to say we have to assure our selves of the absence of something, there's a bit of a "prove a negative" character to this. Is he asserting that he has, as to every article or entry, either ascertained that it is public domain, or used one of some specific set of notations (list please) to indicate otherwise? Has he obtained releases from all those who registered, covering any material for which they have copyright protection? (Creating a compilation doesn't void overlapping copyright protection of others.) Have they promised him it was original or PD? Does he indemnify WP (and those to whom we have represented our contents as GFDL) against claims by others that their copyrights have been infringed, perhaps as a result of some of his contributors not having been as diligent has he claims to have been, in labeling non-PD material?

IMO:

if he wants to personally paste plain-text versions of each page or entry of his into a corresponding edit window and click save, we are as well covered as usual.
if he doesn't, the right thing to do is to execute an agreement approved by the WikiMedia Fndn board.
until then, IMO every page with the "migration" notice is a copyvio problem.

--Jerzy·t 21:21, 2005 July 25 (UTC)

Also, for archival purpoises, it would be nice if you could upload your website SQL dump + html+asp source to sources.wikipedia.org and link it from here, in case somebody wants to use the original info. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:33, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

I'll look into it. MikeC 13:30, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've noticed that Thomas William Gould had an obtiuary from the Daily Telegraph. The article is availible online and has a clear copyright notice on the bottom. Reading the comments above, it looks like this should be removed. If there are no objections, i'll og through the other pages and do the same. SeventyThree^(Talk) 10:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. I have done the same when I encounter verbatim text from newspapers in the migrated articles. In most cases only the lead and Details section can be assumed to be victoriacross.net content. Geoff/Gsl 22:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Leyland Harrison

Have you an example of how to transwiki this info? I'm not too sure about this, but could you do Arthur Leyland Harrison as I'm tidying up Dover College because its (wrongly IMHO) on vfd. Cheers, Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:42, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Quiklink --> http://www.victoriacross.net/award.asp?vc=535

Single page vs. individual lists

Having one list for every nationality seems wasteful. As much as some might like to think, WP resources are not infinite - just look at the donation drives that happen regularly.

Having lists with one member, which are unlikely ever to gain additional members, is (and I hate to say this) beyond the point of stupidity. Perhaps these should all be listed in one single list, arranged by nationality, or have the minor nations (i.e. those with fewer than n recipients, where n is a reasonable boundary) in one list, and longer lists (those with over 100 entries certainly) still on their own page. Chris 04:11, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The resources for this are insignificant. Not even worth thinking about that reason. It is perhaps worth thinking about whether it's the easiest approach for humans, though. In this case, one list page with links to pages for countries with many recipients may be best. What is a problem is bulk updates of single articles with things like interwiki links, which can happen in quantites of 100,000-200,000 articles at a time. That sort of thing should really be done so many changes to one page are made at the same time. Jamesday 10:20, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Relatives info

If there are problems with this, a link to a sub-page of the talk page might be one approach. However, it's useful information so a sub-page of the article with them listed as sources might be a better idea, so those who get the article also get the citations and contact details for checking the article. Jamesday 10:20, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rank notations

I see a number of rank notations on migrated pages such as: "A/Lieutenant Colonel", "T/Brigadier-General", etc. These are red-links at present, and I'm not clear what they're intended to denote. Web search hasn't turned up much. To confuse matters, I notice that one regimental web site [1] describes as a Captain someone down here as an A/LtC. I'm guessing these are acting or temporary ranks -- can anyone confirm, or otherwise clarify? Alai 04:25, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Acting" or "Temporary" is right, I believe. Happened a lot; you got the authority of higher rank but not the higher pay. When I remember, I just move the "A/" or "T/" outside the link. Geoff/Gsl 04:45, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, I considered doing that, but equally it's handy to have them "linked" to the undefined term, as that's convenient for finding and fixing them later. Ideally if we can confirm this, we can expand the reference, rather than just leaving the rather cryptic notation as is. Alai 02:01, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

James Bathgate

Is James Bathgate a legitimate VC? I can't believe you guys would have missed him out until 3rd March. Rich Farmbrough 22:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looks very fishy to me. Can find nothing relevant via google. Is there even a WW2 4th Light Cavalry? I'm inclined to VfD, but I'll wait a couple of days just in case. Alai 00:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would say it is bogus. It certainly didn't come from www.victoriacross.net which is where all the migrated articles came from. "James Bathgate" was added to the Scottish VC recipients list at the same time as the article was created. Geoff/Gsl 04:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Penny drops belatedly: article claims this is a D-Day VC. Somewhat remarkably, only one such was awarded, and not to this chap. I shall go ahead and VfD. Alai 05:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Acting ranks

OK, I've changed "a [[A/" to "an Acting [[" in every article I could find that (dead-)links to each of the following:

A/Brigadier
A/Lieutenant Colonel
A/Major
A/Captain
A/Lieutenant
A/Company Sergeant-Major
A/Company Quartermaster-Sergeant
A/Sergeant
A/Corporal
A/Lance-Corporal
A/Squadron Leader
A/Flight Lieutenant
A/Flight Sergeant
A/Leading Seaman
A/Subadar
A/Naik

One or two or the links are still dead, but most of them this fixes. Numerous "T/" ranks still to do.

I also notice the following:

Bt/Lieutenant Colonel
Bt/Major

Brevet? Batallion? Alai 03:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Brevet", I would guess. Turns out I was wrong above. "Acting" means you get the pay, etc. of the higher rank but can be reverted to your original rank. "Brevet" means you don't get the pay and can be reverted. For the British Army there are some definitions here. Geoff/Gsl 03:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I'll create some stub articles for those. May even eventually get around to linking them properly... Alai 04:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now done everything that red-linked to:

Bt/Brigadier
Bt/Colonel
T/Major
T/Captain
T/Lieutenant
T/Corporal

Also linking to the existing Brevet (military) article in the former cases (which could do with some specifics on the British Army, etc). Alai

Gallantry versus valour

Why do all these VC articles say "the highest and most prestigious award for gallantry"? Isn't it the George Cross that's given for gallantry; and the Victoria Cross for valour?

Articles on individual books

Is it really appropriate for each reference book on this subject to have its own article. Will the article ever be more than a synopsis and publication details (see Monuments to Courage)? Contrast this to the article on The Register of the Victoria Cross, which describes (albeit in four lines) how the very existence of the register has a social and historical impact. Most titles on the (very long) list at VC.net would surely be better placed under References as applicable - listed fully with ISBN (as per Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style#Books). This would be more usable for readers with slow download speeds, who currently have an additional click before they can identify the book and take the details to Amazon, or whatever. Indeed, the central Victoria Cross article would be the ideal place for a unified list of VC resources with ISBNs (and one-line descriptions if necessary). Nicht wahr? JackyR 17:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart McPherson

Hi, I hear you wrote or compiled the page for Stewart McPherson, could you help me clean it up? there are a lot of unreferenced articles, loose HTML code, and various other things that an expert would know more about. Thanks! --Awiseman 15:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 14:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VC website being squatted?

I noticed that in the Gerard Broadmead Roope article (and indeed the project page here) that the http://www.victoriacross.net/ link seems to go to a generic 'search' page which is common among domain squatters. Should these links be changed/removed? BigNate37_(T) 03:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second the motion. The squatter will also take advantage of the pagerank from Wikipedia. Clemwang 21:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Wars

The New Zealand (Land) Wars and the Victoria Cross: At present for VCs under “Campaign” there are two categories for the New Zealand (Land) Wars (1) The Taranaki Maori War and (2) The Waikato-Hauhau Maori War. But these two are only part of the New Zealand Wars, and several of the VCs were won I think at Gate Pa which is part of the Tauranga Campaign!

Is there any objection if I alter the VCs by Campaign to just refer to the New Zealand Land Wars and delete the two subcategories?

Possibly just call it the New Zealand Wars, after Belich’s book. They were called in New Zealand: The Maori Wars, then The Land Wars, then The New Zealand Wars As “The New Zealand Land Wars” is a clumsy composite, there is some argument for just saying The New Zealand Wars (with redirects).

Most of the VCs (16) were for British troops, though there was one for Charles Heaphy (a colonial soldier, under British command) who is not mentioned in either of the two lists.

There are also two entries for John Lucas (Irish soldier) to be combined. John Lucas VC & John Lucas (VC). Hugo999 13:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I think John Murray (not Lucas) is listed twice! Hugo999 13:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the campaign box, keep the title The New Zealand land wars? Hugo999 13:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and individuality on entries

While I do think that a certain degree of standardization is a good thing, it seems odd to me that so many articles should begin with "so-and-so was a English/Scottish/Australian/etc recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest and most prestigious award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces" with no further information in the intro as to what wars or battles they fought in, what specific actions earned them the Cross, or what else makes them notable. This statement alone applies to many many people across several generations, different wars, different nationalities, and you're basically lumping them all together.

I don't mean to be annoying - please take this as friendly constructive criticism. Take care, and keep up the good work! LordAmeth 10:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving under MILHIST

Seeing as this project seems to be inactive (and likely completed), would there be any objections to archiving it on a subpage of the Military history WikiProject (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Victoria Cross Reference migration)? Kirill 03:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As there have been no objections, I have archived the page as proposed above. Kirill 19:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:VCJosephKaebleGrave.jpg

This image will be deleted from the Commons as there is no evidence that the author freely licensed it. If there is anything that can be done, that would be great. Cheers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]