Talk:List of Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients

Comment on Ratings
In my opinion, I believe that a "start" rating by the Military history WikiProject is absurd because this is not an "article", it is a "list" and it is about as complete as it is going to get. Since when are lists' rated?

Second, how could the Wiki Project Mexican-Americans rate this list as mid-importance?.. A list that never exsisted before about our "Hispanic" heroes (not only Mexican-Americans) is only "mid-important"? I'm sorry, I feel that it is very important.

That's how I feel about those so called ratings. Tony the Marine 17:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

to-do cleanup
Circeus 16:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Cleanup links from header WP:MOSHEAD
 * use actual bulleted list format WP:LIST
 * Clean up blurbs when there is already an article

Also, the first servicemember from each service (Army, Navy, Marine Corp., Air Force) could and probably should be more clearly marked somehow. -Fsotrain09 20:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

OK
I may concede that this is a list, but could someone please capitalize Hispanic and make it singular? -Murcielago 21:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is kind of funny or sad that someone who asks for a general cleanup doesn't even know that the word "Hispanic" goes with a capital "H" and in this case singular. Tony the Marine 21:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * yes, I messed up in the move. My bad. In the meantime, I have fixed the double redirect Circeus 23:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

List format
From WP:LIST:
 * This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It has general acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

(Bold mine). I respectfully disagree that this article should follow the standard bulleted list guideline. In this case, the "list" provides specific information about Medal of Honor recipients; not all of whom have articles. There are other examples of "lists" that have additional information: It is my feeling that this "list" should remain as it is. The format is quite readable; provides encyclopedic information; is standardized; etc. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * List of Medal of Honor recipients
 * Commandant of the Marine Corps has an embedded list following a short introduction.
 * Specific information should be relevant to the list's topic. the one we have here is not. If any "specific information" should be there, (and especially here for those missing articles), it should be why they received the medal. Or you could (almost should) reuse the same format as List of Medal of Honor recipients, since this is basically a more targetetd version of it. Circeus 23:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the "list" is in its nascent stage, and I was hoping to bulk it up a bit, myself. Realistically speaking, there may not be enough information for a whole stand-alone article for many of these folks.  Categorizing it in the same way as List of Medal of Honor recipients seems like it would hobble us.  I understand Circeus's reasoning, but I think of this as an "expansion" of the MOH list, rather than a "more targeted" MOH list.  Notably, unlike other lists, this one isn't going to grow out of control, as the dues for joining the club are too high.  Ideally, I think each MOH winner should have a paragraph or so summary, with a photo of them on the right.  The list formats available make that cumbersome and strange.  -Murcielago 23:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not an expansion of the MOH list, it is a subset of it. No amount of reasoning can change the fact that every single element of this list is also (or should be, as some are not listed) automatically an element of List of Medal of Honor recipients. And I think the table format I have below can easily accomodate your proposal. Adding a column for images would be easy. Circeus 23:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Example
here is an example of what I would consider a good entry:
 * Linked Name
 * Year of award, reason
 * France Silva
 * 1901, For distinguished conduct in the defense of the civilian legation in Beijing between 28 June and 17 August 1900

Note that this information could alternatively be presented in a table, instead:

What do you think? Circeus 23:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Circeus, see my comments above. This one leaves out one of the most interesting subjects to me: place of birth (that's what got me interested in this list in the first place), and see my comments above about the ones that won't get more than a stub in their stand-alone article.  -Murcielago 23:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If they wouldn't have articles, then we just don't link them. And place of birth can be added too, as is. Circeus 23:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The table above is a nice format, but with the amount and type of information that is appropriate for each individual entry, the table would become unwieldy. (I'm considering using a similiar format for another article that needs only a few columns.) &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally believe that the list and its present format is fine as is and covers all the basics. There is no need to copy other formats. I believe that there are people interested who will create articles where the red links exist and that those interested in finding out more about the MOH recipient will either create an article or go to the one already in existence. Tony the Marine 02:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Basic info
The citations pages on the U.S. Army site show some basic information that might be a nice set of standard items to include; then additional info/comments could be added: The date of award is of note when it is much later than the action (as in the case of African-American World War II Medal of Honor recipients, who were recognized in 1997). I do not know yet whether this would apply to any of the men on this list. &mdash; ERcheck (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Rank, Unit, Military Branch. Date and Place of Action. (Optional Date of Award). Place of Birth.

Comments on notability / note of this group
All references in this list retrieved on 2007-06-02 &mdash; User: (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Chihuahua, Mexico
Needs disambiguating. City or state? Aille (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Doubled designators?
I am baffled, what is the point of adding the asterisk? Why doesn't the violet background alone suffice? Irish Melkite (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Does Portuguese count?
By some definitions, Portuguese counts as Hispanic. If so, the Portugese-American Leroy A. Mendonca should be included in the Korean War section.2600:8805:5800:AD00:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No! Portugese are not Hispanic. Hispanic is an ethnic term employed to categorize any citizen or resident of the United States, of any racial background, of any country, and of any religion, who has at least one ancestor from the people of Spain or is of non-Hispanic origin, but has an ancestor from Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Central or South America, or other Hispanic origin. The three largest Hispanic groups in the United States are the Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans and Cubans. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Googling shows quite a debate about this, so I won't belabor the point.2600:8805:5800:AD00:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)