User talk:Anthony Staunton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Victoria Cross 2 VC suggestions 3 VC talk page 4 Welcome! 5 MC 6 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008) 7 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008) 8 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008) 9 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

[edit] Victoria Cross

There is a discussion at the moment on the best way to describe the award of the Victoria Cross for New Zealand to Bill Apiata on the Talk:Victoria Cross page. If you would like to share your views on the matter, you would be most welcome. Thankyou Woodym555 13:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VC suggestions

I have replied on the talk page with some suggestions. Your input would be appreciated. Woody (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VC talk page

By the way Anthony, you should never refactor or remove another editors comments from talkpages as you did with this edit. I know it looks untidy but we need to see how things have developed. I am working on implementing the suggestions now but am having trouble with the threading on the talk page. Woody (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have now implemented the changes from the talkpage. I edited them for some grammar and technical fixes with wiki markup. Let me know if you see a problem. Thanks again for all your work on this. Woody (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for removing comments. I was unaware of the protocol but I now appreciate why it was inappropriate. Thank you very much for your assistance. I am pleased to accept corrections to typos, grammer and technical fixes with wiki markup.--Anthony Staunton (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all, I didn't think you would be aware of all the protocols which is why I left you the note. Some people can be quite tempestuous over it though, in this case, it seemed fairly ok to do it, and I have no problem with it so I haven't restored and threaded the comments. Thanks again for all your input. If you ever need any help, you know where my talkpage is. Regards. Woody (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

[edit] MC

If you look closely at the url for a supplement and a straight issue you will see that they have different parameters. Within the template {{LondonGazette}} to get this change to occur you need to set the parameter supp=yes to get the correctly formatted url (and if you don't do this then the link won't work). This also adds the text (Supplement) after the issue number, possibly this is redundant, but it would be better to discuss this on the template talk page, rather than between ourselves here. Sorry about the page number - I don't know what happened there, I've fixed it now.

As to the dates, for reasons best known to itself, when something was originally published as a Supplement, the Gazette website indexes it under the date of the previous issue. If you search on the issue number you can see that the date is given as 20 October 1980, and if you open up the pdf, the navigation pane at the top of the screen also gives that date. If you search by date] on 21 October 1980, all the results relate to Issue 48347, not 48346. In some circumstances I've got round this by writing something like "published in a supplement to the London Gazette of date1 (dated date2), but that doesn't really work in this case.

If you look at the parameters which are used to create the url, you can see that the Gazette website itself does not really use the date at all, everything is driven by Issue number (which is of course unique), and page number (normally unique within a year, except for early issues, and Honours list supplements), so it's the issue number that really drives things (plus of course many supplements can be published on the same day, although the page numbering deals with that to some extent). Hope this clears things up a bit for you. David Underdown (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation and for fixing the page number.

I now understand why (Supplement) is after the issue number.

It is redundant and I agree it should be discussed on the template talk page.

I am keen to understand how to create a link but I am not across it yet. The LG has had a date problem since day one of being online so I understand why the wrong date is used in the link. However 20 October 1980 should not appear in the footnote since the date at the top of the actual page is 21 October 1980. Does 20 October 1980 after the link need to appear in the published footnote or can it be suppressed and that 21 October 1980 appear between the gazette number and the page number. I would much rather have 21 October 1980 and no link than a link if the price for the link is an incorrect date.--Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is (arguably) incorrect, after all it's a supplemetn to the issue published on the date given, but as things stand it's the date which would actually find the information on the gazette website, search on the date printed on the Gazette and you won't actually find what you are looking for. If you have the isue numebr, the date is irrelevant anyway, and you could in fact put whatever you liked there without actually breaking anything. To some extent it's merely the convention I've adopted in adding many, many references to Gazettes over the past few months. The dating is always a bit weird in the Gazette anyway, New Year's Honours list is always published at the end of December, but awards are date 1 Jan. In fact I suppose that the issue over dating is themain use of putting (Supplement) in, it warns the reader that the date quoted is that of the original issue, not the date the supplement was printed. David Underdown (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say. I am not disputing that the link needs the date of the gazette rather than the date of the supplement. What I am questioning is why publish the date of the gazette after the link icon. To find the page required all you need to do is activate the link icon. When the link icon is activated the reader sees the date of the supplement and page number. So I would like a footnote to reflect what the reader sees when the link icon opens the page: London Gazette, supplement (if consensus is that it is necessary), date of the supplement, page number plus the link icon.--Anthony Staunton (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

But they do see the date I have given in the navigation section over the actual pdf document. To some extent either the date or the issue number is redundant, but what we are trying to do is give the reader as much information as possible in the event that the direct link breaks. there are still a number of articles on wikipedia that contain links to the old version of the Gazette website (it was revamped in October last year) - and the same thing could easily happen again. Using the template hopefully means we can fix all the references using it centrally. Note that date is actaully an optional parameter, we don't need to give it in Wikipedia at all because the gazette website is actually driven entirely by the issue and page numbers. David Underdown (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the patience. Your have been most helpful in allowing me to focus on what I want: London Gazette, supplement (if consensus is that it is necessary), date of the supplement, page number plus the link icon. However, to continue my argument I need to better understand both the template and the link. I think I need to play in the sandbox.--Anthony Staunton (talk) 23:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)