<article_title>Victoria_Cross_(Canada)</article_title>
<edit_user>Miesianiacal</edit_user>
<edit_time>Tuesday, August 4, 2009 7:27:42 PM CEST</edit_time>
<edit_comment>notes, c/e</edit_comment>
<edit_text>With Canada at war for the first time since its version of the Victoria Cross was created, preparations for a physical cast of the medal were initiated in 2006, when a committee called the Victoria Cross Production Planning Group was formed under the leadership of the Chancellery of Honours at Rideau Hall. It originally consisted of representatives from the Department of National Defence, Veterans Affairs Canada, and the Office of the Secretary to the Governor General, and the group later expanded to include individuals from the Department of Canadian Heritage, Natural Resources Canada, and the Royal Canadian Mint.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; Following their research and deliberations, the first Victoria Cross decoration was struck in 2007, as confirmed by Deputy Herald Chancellor Emmanuelle Sajous,&lt;ref name=CMN /&gt; and the medal was officially released to the public on 16 May 2008, by the Governor General at Rideau Hall.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; <strong><strike>

The medal</strike></strong><strong>It</strong> was one of 20 cast, each of which is comprised of metals from the original metal for the Imperial Victoria Cross&amp;ndash;a Russian cannon from the Crimean War (1854&amp;ndash;56)&amp;ndash;the Confederation Medal (1867), and a selection of metals from each of regions nationwide.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; The traditional explanation of the source of the gunmetal from which the Imperial medals are struck is that it derives from Russian cannon captured at the siege of Sevastopol. Research carried out by John Glanfield has thrown doubt on this story, suggesting a variety of origins for the material actually making up the medals themselves.&lt;ref name=Glanfield&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;</edit_text>
<turn_user>Miesianiacal<turn_user>
<turn_time>Tuesday, August 4, 2009 7:55:35 PM CEST</turn_time>
<turn_topicname>Notes (of the foot type and others)</turn_topicname>
<turn_topictext>I've retitled the notes and footnotes sections as per WP:REFNOTE, which states, in particular, that "A separate section containing references is usually given the title 'References', while the explanatory notes section retains the 'Notes' title." As for the bibliography, as I explained in my edit summary, its contents are not, as far as I can tell, references for the article, but are instead there for further reading on the subject; I removed from that section books that are already present in the references. --border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%background-color:black;color:whiteĦ color:blackMIESIANIACAL 11:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC) While this wasn't one of the recent changes, is there any reason why all the refs and notes are enclosed in "small" html tags. I don't know of any other article that does this, it makes them quite hard to read on my monitor. David Underdown (talk) 09:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)In terms of the footnotes, Miesianiacal and I had a http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Miesianiacal&amp;oldid=305449131#Canadian about it. In terms of "small" that is part of ; use large font. Reflist seems to have become the standard use due to the sheer size of the references if they are in large font on articles such as Victoria Cross where there are over 80 references. Regards, Woody (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)I think we're slightly at cross-purposes, the first time a reference appears, looking in edit mode I see every other usage of the ref tag also seems to be enclosed in small tags. This makes the [1] and so on you get for each reference exceedingly small and difficult to read. David Underdown (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Ah, Oui, Je comprends, so I have removed them. I could see no reason for them and I think they go against WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Regards, Woody (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)I'm not seeing how it's so small as to be difficult to read; in fact, as I noted at my talkpage, it's the present arragement, wherein baseline spacing is uneven - a rather big no-no in print typesetting - depending on the presence or absence of an inline reference tag, that makes the article(s) difficult for me to read. This appears as such on all screens I use. I'll try to get some screenshots later (this is a somewhat new computer I'm using). --border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%background-color:black;color:whiteĦ color:blackMIESIANIACAL 13:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)If there's an issue with the standard ref tags, it would be better to get them fixed at source, project wide. Adopting ad hoc fixes for individual articles simply makes editing harder. You may find it OK, but I was struggling, and though I routinely wear glasses, my sight only needs minimal correction. David Underdown (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)I attempted that, but received no assistance. --border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%background-color:black;color:whiteĦ color:blackMIESIANIACAL 18:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC) To offer another explanation: I've restored my note format, as it automatically numbers the notes, as opposed to Woody's method, which requires manual tracking to make sure a note's number matches the order of its corresponding inline tag. --border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%background-color:black;color:whiteĦ color:blackMIESIANIACAL 19:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)</turn_topictext>
<turn_text>To offer another explanation: I've restored my note format, as it automatically numbers the notes, as opposed to Woody's method, which requires manual tracking to make sure a note's number matches the order of its corresponding inline tag. --border-top:1px solid black;font-size:80%</turn_text>