<article_title>Victoria_Cross_(Canada)</article_title>
<edit_user>Miesianiacal</edit_user>
<edit_time>Saturday, August 1, 2009 5:49:39 AM CEST</edit_time>
<edit_comment>c/e, fmt refs in eligibility section</edit_comment>
<edit_text>Until 1972, 81 members of the Canadian military (including those from Newfoundland) and 13 Canadians <strong>serving in British units </strong>had been awarded the Victoria Cross.&lt;small&gt;&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/small&gt; After that date, however, the Canadian honours system was overhauled, and the Victoria Cross was eliminated from the official list of honours, instigating a decades-long debate on whether or not to reinstate the decoration. The Prime Minister at the time, Pierre Trudeau, regularly dodged questions about the Victoria Cross, stating that &quot;only Canadians should receive Canadian decorations.&quot;&lt;small&gt;&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/small&gt; It was his successor, Brian Mulroney, who set up in 1987 a committee to look into the creation of a Canadian Victoria Cross as part of a new series of military honours.&lt;small&gt;&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/small&gt; Although the committee did not recommend the Victoria Cross, the creation of an Australian Victoria Cross in 1991,&lt;small&gt;&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/small&gt; and pressure from interest groups such as the Monarchist League of Canada and the Royal Canadian Legion forced the plans to be amended;&lt;small&gt;&lt;ref name=CMN&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/small&gt; in 1991, a private member's bill received all-party support in the House of Commons, following which the Victoria Cross, along with other Canadian military valour decorations, were on 31 December 1992 formally requested by Mulroney. The request was approved with the issue of letters patent by Queen Elizabeth II on 2 February of the following year, thereby ceasing Canadian dependence on the British honours system.&lt;small&gt;&lt;ref name=CFdescpage /&gt;&lt;/small&gt;</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>