User talk:Anthony Staunton/Archive 1
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
There is a discussion at the moment on the best way to describe the award of the
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)
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)
- 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)
Welcome!
Hi, and welcome to the
A few features that you might find helpful:
- Our navigation boxpoints to most of the useful pages within the project.
- The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
- Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
- The project has several departments, which handle detailed article and content review, article improvement contests, and other tasks.
- We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
- We've developed a style guidethat covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
- If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention.
- The project has a stress hotlineavailable for your use.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill 13:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
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 {{
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
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)
- 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)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
The
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)
The
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)
The
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)
The
Useful resource
Anthony, you may be already of this,
Thank you for this. I was aware it was online and I have accessed the files in person at the TNA. I hope to spend a day there in February 2009 but would love to spend several weeks.Anthony Staunton (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I sometimes wish my job gave me more chance to get invovled with original files, rather than things like the PRONOM technical registry, but if there's anythign I might be abel to help with in advance of your vist, do let me know. David Underdown (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Fishing for comments
Hi there Anthony, given your interest on Victoria Cross articles, would you mind looking over
- Very much appreciated, I have amended the list and left replies on the talkpage. Thanks, regards. Woody (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)
The
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)
The
Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The September 2008
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)
The
Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The
Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The
Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks, Roger Davies talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The
Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators, Roger Davies talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The
VC recipients discussion
Hi there Anthony, I thought you might be interested in
- Woody, thanks for the alerts. I made a number of changes to the VCFA page before I read your message. I would have held off otherwise. I changed the heading retrospecive awards to belated awards since all awards are retrospective. Although the Hansard references were correct, the content needed to be reworked. I hope it is now more logical. The link to the 2001 ALP platform seems broken. Anthony Staunton (talk) 05:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I changed it back without realising who it was who had changed it. I take your point, but it seems to me that the essence of the matter is that the proposed awards (significantly) predate the creation of the propsed award. Retrospecitve aplies to that, rather than the awards themselves (and you seem to be quoted saying retrospective yourself..). David Underdown (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the
If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The
VCs by Nationality
Thought you might be interested to know that I have nominated the VCs by nationality list for removal as a Featured list. Given the uncertainties surrounding nationality, I thought it best to do this. See the blurb below for the formalities, Regards, Woody (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The
Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The
Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the
VC medal sales
I don't know whether you have seen my reply on the VC discussion page but I thought I would give you a bump on here. Essentially, feel free to go ahead and edit the page to what you discussed on the talkpage. I don't want to be seen to take the credit for your edits and I agree with what you have said. You have the best understanding of the issues at this point so you would be the best to edit it.
Also, do you have any further information on the Netley VC? QARANC's website seems to be a bit confused about whether it was the "first VC" or a prototype. Thanks, all the best, Woody (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the alert. I will have a quick look now. There is information in Crook on Netley which I will scan for you later today. It is 1.20 am as I write this. Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
The
VC for Australia again
Anthony, a few questions have come up at the VC for Australia page which meant that I just wanted to double-check that it's true to say that all original VCs received by Australians were presented to them (or next of kin) by the Governor-General or the reigning monarch? David Underdown (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
|
|
|
July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here .
|
This has been an automated delivery by
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)
|
|
A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound |
Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants |
|
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section talk ) 22:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
|
The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Davies talk 21:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)
|
The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals |
|
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section talk ) 21:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
|
The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section
The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section
The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010
|
OzVC2
FYI: Your opinion is solicited at Talk:List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients#OzVC2. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section
The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section
The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section
The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section
The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
|
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section
The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page,
The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page,
The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page,
The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page,
The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
|
To receive this newsletter on your talk page,
The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
|
The Bugle is published by the
Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "
The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the
The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the
The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the
The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
|
The Bugle is published by the