Talk:Victoria Cross (Canada)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Victoria Cross (Canada) article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Featured article star 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.
Featured topic star Victoria Cross (Canada) is part of the "Victoria Cross" series (project page), a featured topic identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Notice It has been decided that the Victoria Cross available to Canadian personnel should remain at Victoria Cross (Canada). For the discussion that led to this decision see the discussion here and the additional comments in a section of User:Xdamr's talk page.

Contents

[edit] Vimy Ridge VC?

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 The article is now out of date and needs updating by someone who knows.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)


[edit] GA Candidate

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)

[edit] GA Passed

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)

[edit] Delisted GA

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 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Good article review

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)

[edit] Proposing Move

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 (talk • contribs)

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)

[edit] Annuity

$3,000 per year was abolished in 1990. See http://www.canlii.org/ca/regu/si90-95/whole.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.16.117 (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 99.241.16.117 (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 198.103.213.2 (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)