<article_title>Victoria_Cross_(Canada)</article_title>
<edit_user>Miesianiacal</edit_user>
<edit_time>Tuesday, August 4, 2009 4:15:03 AM CEST</edit_time>
<edit_comment>reformat refs &amp;amp; note</edit_comment>
<edit_text>In the case of a gallant and daring act having been performed by a squadron, ship's company, or detached body of individuals (such as marines) in which all persons were deemed equally brave and deserving of the Victoria Cross, a ballot is to be drawn; the commissioned and non-commissioned officers each select one or their own, and the private soldiers or seamen select from amongst themselves two individuals.<strong><strike>{{Ref label|Clause13|A|}}</strike></strong><strong>&lt;small&gt;{{#tag:ref|Clause 13 of the original warrant constituting the Victoria Cross states: &quot;It is ordained that in the event of a gallant and daring act having been performed by a squadron, ship's company, or detached body of seamen and marines not under fifty in number, or by a brigade, regiment, troop or company in which the admiral, general, or other officer commanding such forces may deem that all are equally brave and distinguished, and that no special selection can be made by them, then is such case the admiral, general, or other officer commanding, may direct that for any such body of seamen or marines, or for every troop or company of soldiers, one officer shall be selected by the officers engaged for the Decoration, and in like manner one petty officer or non-commissioned officer shall be selected by the petty officers and non-commissioned officers engaged, and two seamen or private soldiers or marines shall be selected by the seamen, or private soldiers, or marines engaged, respectively for the Decoration, and the names of those selected shall be transmitted by the senior officers in command of the Naval force, brigade, regiment, troop, or company, to the admiral or general officer commanding, who shall in due manner confer the Decoration as if the acts were done under his own eye.&quot;&lt;small&gt;&lt;ref&gt;{{LondonGazette|issue=21846|startpage=411|date=5 February 1856|accessdate=1 December 2008}}&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/small&gt;|group=&lt;small&gt;n&lt;/small&gt;|name=VC1}}&lt;/small&gt;</strong></edit_text>
<turn_user>David Underdown<turn_user>
<turn_time>Monday, August 3, 2009 4:19:28 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>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.  </turn_text>