<article_title>Victoria_Cross_(Canada)</article_title>
<edit_user>Miesianiacal</edit_user>
<edit_time>Saturday, August 1, 2009 1:06:59 AM CEST</edit_time>
<edit_comment>c/e lead</edit_comment>
<edit_text>It is awarded for extraordinary valour and devotion to duty while facing a hostile force, and can be awarded by either the Canadian monarch or his or her viceregal representative, the Governor General of Canada, to any member of the Canadian Forces and to allies serving under or with Canadian military command. Whereas in many other Commonwealth countries, the Victoria Cross can only be awarded for actions against the enemy in a wartime setting, the Canadian government has a broader definition of the term enemy, and so the Victoria Cross can be awarded for action against armed mutineers, pirates, or other such hostile forces without war being officially declared.<strong><strike>  

The Canadian medal is based on the original Victoria Cross instituted in 1856, although the Canadian version has several small changes in [[#Appearance|its appearance]].  It is presented to the recipient by the [[Monarchy of Canada|Monarch]] (presently Queen [[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom|Elizabeth II]]) or the [[Governor General of Canada]]&amp;lt;!-- an investiture ceremony is for an order, like the Order of Canada. A decoration is given at a presentation ceremony, hence why &amp;quot;investiture&amp;quot; was removed --&amp;gt;. </strike></strong> Recipients are entitled to use the post-nominal letters V.C. (whether in English or French), and also to an annual annuity of C$3,000 annually.&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt; It can be awarded more than once, but no one has received the award since its inception.</edit_text>
<turn_user>Miesianiacal<turn_user>
<turn_time>Saturday, August 1, 2009 11:48:08 AM 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>There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:</turn_text>