Talk:List of Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... United States military history task force

An entry from List of Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 15 July 2006.

	List of Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients falls under the scope of WikiProject Mexican-Americans, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexican-Americans on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Mexican-Americans as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Mexican-Americans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Cooment on Ratings 2 to-do cleanup 3 OK 4 List format 4.1 Example 5 Basic info

[edit] Cooment on Ratings

In my opinion, I believe that a "start" rating by the Military history WikiProject is absurd because this is not an "article", it is a "list" and it is about as complete as it is going to get. Since when are lists' rated?

Second, how could the Wiki Project Mexican-Americans rate this list as mid-importance?.. A list that never exsisted before about our "Hispanic" heroes (not only Mexican-Americans) is only "mid-important"? I'm sorry, I feel that it is very important.

That's how I feel about those so called ratings. Tony the Marine 17:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] to-do cleanup

• Cleanup links from header WP:MOSHEAD
• use actual bulleted list format WP:LIST
  • Clean up blurbs when there is already an article

Circeus 16:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the first servicemember from each service (Army, Navy, Marine Corp., Air Force) could and probably should be more clearly marked somehow. -Fsotrain09 20:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OK

I may concede that this is a list, but could someone please capitalize Hispanic and make it singular? -Murcielago 21:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• It is kind of funny or sad that someone who asks for a general cleanup doesn't even know that the word "Hispanic" goes with a capital "H" and in this case singular. Tony the Marine 21:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • yes, I messed up in the move. My bad. In the meantime, I have fixed the double redirect Circeus 23:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List format

From WP:LIST:

This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It has general acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

(Bold mine). I respectfully disagree that this article should follow the standard bulleted list guideline. In this case, the "list" provides specific information about Medal of Honor recipients; not all of whom have articles. There are other examples of "lists" that have additional information:

• List of Medal of Honor recipients
• Commandant of the Marine Corps has an embedded list following a short introduction.

It is my feeling that this "list" should remain as it is. The format is quite readable; provides encyclopedic information; is standardized; etc. — ERcheck (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Specific information should be relevant to the list's topic. the one we have here is not. If any "specific information" should be there, (and especially here for those missing articles), it should be why they received the medal. Or you could (almost should) reuse the same format as List of Medal of Honor recipients, since this is basically a more targetetd version of it. Circeus 23:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the "list" is in its nascent stage, and I was hoping to bulk it up a bit, myself. Realistically speaking, there may not be enough information for a whole stand-alone article for many of these folks. Categorizing it in the same way as List of Medal of Honor recipients seems like it would hobble us. I understand Circeus's reasoning, but I think of this as an "expansion" of the MOH list, rather than a "more targeted" MOH list. Notably, unlike other lists, this one isn't going to grow out of control, as the dues for joining the club are too high. Ideally, I think each MOH winner should have a paragraph or so summary, with a photo of them on the right. The list formats available make that cumbersome and strange. -Murcielago 23:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not an expansion of the MOH list, it is a subset of it. No amount of reasoning can change the fact that every single element of this list is also (or should be, as some are not listed) automatically an element of List of Medal of Honor recipients. And I think the table format I have below can easily accomodate your proposal. Adding a column for images would be easy. Circeus 23:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Example

here is an example of what I would consider a good entry:

• Linked Name
  • Year of award, reason

• France Silva
  • 1901, For distinguished conduct in the defense of the civilian legation in Beijing between 28 June and 17 August 1900

Note that this information could alternatively be presented in a table, instead:

Name	Year awarded	Reasons of citation
Boxer Rebellion
France Silva	1901	For distinguished conduct in the defense of the civilian legation in Beijing between 28 June and 17 August 1900
World War II
Harold Gonsalves	1946	For sacrificing in life in Okinawa to save his comrades' lives on April 15, 1945.

What do you think? Circeus 23:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Circeus, see my comments above. This one leaves out one of the most interesting subjects to me: place of birth (that's what got me interested in this list in the first place), and see my comments above about the ones that won't get more than a stub in their stand-alone article. -Murcielago 23:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If they wouldn't have articles, then we just don't link them. And place of birth can be added too, as is. Circeus 23:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The table above is a nice format, but with the amount and type of information that is appropriate for each individual entry, the table would become unwieldy. (I'm considering using a similiar format for another article that needs only a few columns.) — ERcheck (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally believe that the list and its present format is fine as is and covers all the basics. There is no need to copy other formats. I believe that there are people interested who will create articles where the red links exist and that those interested in finding out more about the MOH recipient will either create an article or go to the one already in existence. Tony the Marine 02:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basic info

The citations pages on the U.S. Army site show some basic information that might be a nice set of standard items to include; then additional info/comments could be added:

• Rank, Unit, Military Branch. Date and Place of Action. (Optional Date of Award). Place of Birth.

The date of award is of note when it is much later than the action (as in the case of African-American World War II Medal of Honor recipients, who were recognized in 1997). I do not know yet whether this would apply to any of the men on this list. — ERcheck (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)