Talk:List of Congressional Gold Medal recipients

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some context should be given: A link to the article that discusses this honor, and an explanation of each column (in particular the meaning of "public law" is unclear), would help.—msh210℠ 01:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Upgrade

I plan on giving this article an upgrade today sooner or later (i.e. splitting the list into sections, converting it into wiki table syntax, etc.) - Lucky13pjn 13:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seems to be copied from HoR Clerk's office page

That page seems to be the work of an employee of the Federal government of the United States and so is probably in the public domain. Regardless, I'm citing it as a source. (http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressional_History/goldMedal.html) -- SilverStartalk 01:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mislinked names

I fixed William Sinnott, as I doubt Will Sinnott received a CGM in 1940. :) I'll keep checking more to make sure they go to who they should. — MrDolomite • Talk 05:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaned up entries since 2004, added helps, other cleanup

  • Removed links to the laws as they are duplicated by the "Public Law" section.
  • Added instructions section so future entries are more standardized
  • Added a couple of external links
  • Removed stray name of individual Tuskegee Airman that didn't belong

Davidwr 04:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup to-do

Things to do in your spare time:

  • Convert P.L. and Stat. information to the template format used by 2004 and later entries, but only where the really work. This is really important only for those laws that are online, but it's OK to use the template if the law is not online.
  • Double-check all internal links for near-identical names.

Davidwr 04:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Instructions for adding new names

The "Instructions for adding new names" section of the article doesn't really belong in the article itself, does it? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to stick it at the top of the talk page or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.141.211 (talk • contribs)

Yes, you are absolutely right. Instructions on how to edit are not to be a part of the article itself. We may add a copy of the instructions to the talk page as well, but more appropriately, I have turned that section into a note to users on the page itself, but which is only visible when on editing mode (that is, once people click on the "edit this page" tab and the editing box appears). This required some adapting, since we can't use regular linking (either internal or external) on those, but the information has been retained in its entirety. Thank you for the note. Redux 15:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)\

[edit] Dalai lama

Shouldn't he be added?

No, because he's already there. The date of approval is over a year ago. It's funny, I've never seen so many people self-revert before. --Siradia 03:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Should we refer to the Dali Lama as "His Holiness" here? As in... "His Holiness Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama" --Anthony 13:24, 19 October 2007 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.132.170.50 (talk)
No, styles shouldn't be used. I removed them. Gugganij (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is a joke right?

If this isn't a joke how come the list doesn't include the reason the award was given? Its a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kadiddlehopper (talk • contribs) 15:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it doesn't have the reason for the award because no one has added it to the page yet. If you feel it would be better with the reason for each award added to this page, be bold and add the information in. Jons63 18:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)