Talk:List of First World War Victoria Cross recipients

Captain C.Y. Baldwin, of the British Army, earned VC at Gallipoli?
Edmonton Bulletin during the war quoted letter from staff officer of 30th infantry Brigade, 10th Division, Mediterranean Expeditionary Force, saying that Capt. C.Y. Baldwin of the same unit won a VC some time before being wounded at Gallipoli. (Ed. Bulletin, Jan. 18, 1916) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.208.33 (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of First World War Victoria Cross recipients. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120217203616/http://collectionscanada.ca/databases/cef/index-e.html to http://collectionscanada.ca/databases/cef/index-e.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Were are the Irish?
"Estimates of how many Irish men fought in the First World War vary, but it is now generally accepted that around 200,000 soldiers from the island of Ireland served over the course of the war." http://www.iwm.org.uk/history/irelands-role-in-the-first-world-war

"37 Irish VCs in World War I" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irish_Victoria_Cross_recipients — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.171.80.247 (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 21 September 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus  Dr Strauss   talk   19:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

– As these are all featured articles, I have decided not to be wp:bold in moving these articles myself. Per the consensus at Talk:Military history of the United Kingdom during World War II, it was decided that Military history of the United Kingdom during World War II should not be moved to, the consensus reading (to quote ) for page not to be moved for consistency and as per WP:COMMONNAME. remarked at said discussion that he thought there was a case for deprecating usage of "Second World War" across the whole Wiki for consistency's sake, and I am inclined to agree. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 00:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC) --Relisting.  Dr Strauss   talk   11:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)  --Relisting.   Dr Strauss   talk   13:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * List of First World War Victoria Cross recipients → List of World War I Victoria Cross recipients
 * List of Second World War Victoria Cross recipients → List of World War II Victoria Cross recipients
 * British anti-invasion preparations of the Second World War → British anti-invasion preparations of World War II
 * Oppose. It's still an ENGVAR issue, and obviously from comments above. Andrewa (talk) 05:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose all, our readers are not too thick to understand that a single event may have different names in different English-speaking countries. Also, if you want to be consistent why not change "World War II" to "Second World War" across the entire wiki - or is American Exceptionalism and disregard for ENGVAR now policy? The proposal does nothing to improve the encyclopaedia, but rather makes it look even more like a well-funded attempt to impose one country's world-view on everyone else. Emerson, I think it was, had it well - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". DuncanHill (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per World War I and World War II; WP:CONSISTENCY. Sawol (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. As Neve-selbert points out, I did say in a previous discussion that we should probably deprecate use of "First World War" and "Second World War", in favour of a consistent "World War I" etc. I don't have evidence to hand right now, but anecdotally I would say usage in the UK is at least 50/50 in the UK, and the former usage sounds increasingly dated, meaning this really isn't an WP:ENGVAR issue any more. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I would completely disagree with the above. The commonest names in the UK are still First and Second World Wars and neither sound dated in the slightest. Per ENGVAR that is therefore what we should use. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are multiple descriptions for the First World War and I would not like to see consensus on one description. Anthony Staunton (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment How is this an WP:ENGVAR issue? AusLondonder (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Because the commonest name for the war in America is World War I and the commonest name in the United Kingdom is First World War. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. "World War I/II", while commonly used isn't so prevalent in the Commonwealth realms (we got VCs too!) that it should be used to name these articles. To use Canada as an example, the "First/Second World War" nomenclature is used in both official government websites,, and by leading Canadian military historians.  Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've created redirects at the proposed target pointing at the current pages, since they are valid redirects, regardless of how this discussion pans out. Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:CONCISE, and per WP:PRECISE and WP:RECOGNIZABLE. The present title may be read by some as implying it is about the earliest recipients.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, we don't cater for morons! This is an encyclopaedia! And other than consistency (which isn't relevant in an ENGVAR context), I fail to see how any of your other citations are relevant. It isn't any more concise, it isn't any more precise and it isn't any more recognisable outside the USA (back to ENGVAR again). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support for consistency. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 08:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The main articles are World War I and World War II, and subordinate articles should follow this example. Dimadick (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

for the record, and because Dr Strauss  is currently ill and cant respond. I am against this move request being reopened. As a matter of procedure I would suggest waiting at least 6 weeks before opening a new move request on the same principle. British Great War Veterans would literally turn in their graves over this abysmal idea. If you want consistency then go and rename the Second World War articles. Per guidelines the title should reflect the English variant used by the recipients during their lives - 20th century British English. To even consider renaming this for 'consistency' is an affront to their honor, I seriously reject trying to reduce the mass killing of millions of people to a roman numeral, it should, and is, written out in full for a good reason. Obviously this reasoning does not apply to British anti-invasion preparations of the Second World War, which could perhaps be considered on its own, however as a matter of procedure it would be advisable to wait before opening a new move request. Dysklyver 21:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)