Talk:George Medal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals, a collaborative effort to improve, organise, and standardise Wikipedia's coverage of national honours systems. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. You can discuss the project at its talk page

[edit] "George Medal."

This medal is named "The George Medal", not George Medal. It states on the warrant: It is ordained that the Medal shall be designated and styled "The George Medal." The Medal also bears the words, "The George Medal" Thanks, Vera, Chuck & Dave 18:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The Name of this Medal is "The George Medal". [1] NOT "George Medal". Also, it is not a Silver Disk, it is a Circular Silver Medal. Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging up the 'The' issue again - I have a copy of the Warrant in front of me and you are absolutely right. Note though that 'Silver disk' is a perfectly appropriate term, used throughout Wikipedia's coverage of orders, decorations, and medals. Fighting over this issue is fairly profitless, the current terms are a suitable vehicle to convey the necessary information.
Xdamrtalk 23:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for amending the article. To be perfectly frank, I'm not happy with the description Silver Disk, but I certainly won't be fighting over it. The only thing I fight, is fire. Best wishes, Vera, Chuck & Dave 23:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Notable" recipients?

By what standard are these recipients notable? This should either become a full list of recipients or be removed. If you win the GM then you have a certain notability because of the award. Fiddle Faddle 15:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed this very partial list looks odd. The criteria for notability include the following:
"A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.....
  • The person has received significant recognized awards or honors."
The question then becomes twofold: (1) is the GM a significant award or honour? and (2) Is meeting this criterion alone, in the absence of anything else notable, male a person worth an article? Personally, I'd say yes to the former (only 2,000 ever awarded) but no to the latter. So Tenzing Norgay deserves an article for obvious reasons, while it might just be argued that Andrew Pennington does not. We do not have an article on every GM winner (while we do on every VC and GC) and I don't suggest we should. But perhaps a link to the [[Category:George Medal recipients]] should go here in the article, rather than this incomplete list? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 19:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I do feel that the GM is a significant honour. Thus all recipients qualify by that statement.
I incline to the following:
  • inline citations, properly cited, (see {{cite web}} as an example) to those deemed notable, and discarding form the list those who cannot be cited, whether they have their own article or not
  • create the category as well (it has relevance and may co-exist peacefully with a lits)
  • ensure that the medal is added to the individual articles for those people
  • be unafraid of redlinks, for they encourage creation of articles
What brought me here was adding a pair of GM people to Epsom College in the alumni today and wondering whether I should, or not, include them. Does Tenzing Norgay rate as more notable for climbing a hard mountain that Gyles Mackrell for saving 200 people's lives, for example? The medal makes no distinction, and I suspect it would be invidious were we to do the same.
Fiddle Faddle 20:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)