Talk:Dickin Medal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listDickin Medal is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on August 1, 2011.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 16, 2010Featured list candidatePromoted

Comment[edit]

i think it is Apollo the pigeon i checked on discovery channel

Find a reliable source (Newspaper, official documents, etc) and feel free to edit. 24.205.34.217 18:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "British Commonwealth"/"Commonwealth of Nations"[edit]

I still feel that it is superfluous to highlight that the former British Commonwealth is now the Commonwealth of Nations in relation to the original 1943-1949 series of Dickin Medals. The renaming of the Commonwealth took place in April 1949, and only two Dickin Medals were awarded after this date: Tich the dog on 1 July 1949 for actions during WW2, and Simon the cat on 8 August 1949 (date confirming award) for actions in April-through-July 1949.

In other words, of the original series of 54 medals, 52 were awarded before the renaming, and 53 were for actions prior to the change (the latter also applies to the special "late" award for Gander). After Simon's award, the medal was officially replaced with the non-war-specific PDSA Silver Medal (I have also corrected my mistaken reference to the more recent Gold Medal).

The current status of the "modern" 2002-onwards award as to whether it is British, Commonwealth or global is not clear from the PDSA website. The two military awards are to British dogs, albeit one attached to Canadian forces at the time. All three 9/11 dogs are, of course, American, but may be viewed as "exceptional" in the same way that an honorary knighthood can be awarded to a non-Commonwealth citizen (e.g. Bob Geldof and Bill Gates).

I would hope that the text as it now stands is a reasonable compromise.

Nick Cooper 19:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is watching this page...[edit]

"A special "one-off" posthumous Dickin Medal award was made in 2000 to a Canadian dog named Gander for actions in 1941 which would have been honoured at the time, had the PDSA been informed."

This doesn't seem accurate, as the medal was not instituted until 1943. Can someone shed light on this before I edit the statement? → ROUX ₪ 23:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it means "had the award then existed" but it's a rather spurious remark! May as well simplify to "A special "one-off" posthumous Dickin Medal award was made in 2000 to a Canadian dog named Gander for actions in 1941." Thanks, --mervyn (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swansea Jack[edit]

Does anyone know if the Dickin Medal was awarded to Swansea Jack? ViennaUK (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, because Swansea Jack died in 1937 and the Dickin Medal was only instituted in 1943. Annetromney (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes[edit]

I don't see a need for the footnotes to be bold, while references are not. --Dweller (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do I, nor do I. And now they're not. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image problem[edit]

On my screen, the second, third and fourth images are crashing across the table (covering the "references" column, but with the blue "[11]" etc showing over the photos). A right mess. Is anyone else having this problem? Firefox 5.0, widescreen laptop. BencherliteTalk 08:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The images impinge the table on my screen, but only if I go down below about 1000px, also using Windows FF5.0.1... Worst in IE though, I'm removing them. Seemed no trouble in Safari... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red links[edit]

It was decided at the Military History Project to set the goal that each of these honorees have an article, and that this effort might start by creating these red links. By definition, anyone given a Dickin Medal is already notable and sufficient material must be available for creation of at least a short article. Chrisrus (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist have no jurisdiction anywhere on Wikipedia. I've asked you to think twice about these redlinks twice. Why would you think that NPS.42.NS.2780 would suddenly have an article written? I completely buy into the idea of redlinks to encourage articles, but unless you can find some RS to justify that some of these earlier (unnamed) recipients are individually notable, I'd ask you to refrain from relinking them once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be misled by the fact that some of these have only a code name. There were thousands of such birds, so, to make things easier they started an alpha-numerical system of names, that's all. Whether an individual had an English name is not indication of one's role in the war being important enough to earn a Dickin Medal. The mere fact that it won such an honor is enough to prove it must have done something extraordinary and that it will be documented. Again, having a code name in the place of an English name is no measure of the significance of the individual, but having won a Dickin Medal is. Chrisrus (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore, I will reinstate the red links at 18:00 EST, so as not to "edit war", unless there you had some other objection than the pigeon having only an alphanumeric code name. I hope you will have been convinced to let it stand this time. Thank you. Chrisrus (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, please do not reinstate the red links. Even reinstating them at 18:00 EST is edit warring, just slow time edit warring specifically to avoid 3RR. Editing in this fashion is disruptive. Please wait for a consensus to emerge, right now you want them all redlinked, I don't so in the meantime we'll stick to the status quo. You are aware that there is no need for them to be red linked in order for articles to be written about them? Thanks. And it's Dickin Medal, not Dickins Medal. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason you have given was that some of them have only code names. I have pointed out the problem with that reasoning. You have ignored this. Therefore, I revert after waiting the appropriate period of time. Chrisrus (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then I will report you for edit-warring. Where is the consensus or policy that makes your edits the "right" ones? Don't you think your time would be better spent creating these articles rather than just asking others to do so? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We decided to begin by red-linking those without articles. You said no, because some of them have only code names, so they couldn't be notable enough. I pointed out the problem with that reasoning. At that point, you should either point out how that reasoning was faulty or concede. Simple opposition is not enough. You have to use evidence and reason. Chrisrus (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, who are "we"? Stop edit warring. You may be blocked for doing so. Alternatively create the articles. You need to prove in policy or local consensus here why the list in its existing state isn't ok, particularly as it has been community reviewed at WP:FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've created two stubs (Bob (dog) and Beach Comber) in four minutes. Suggest you carry on where I left off instead of edit warring. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said you completely bought into the idea of redlinks to encourage articles, but objected because some of them have just alphanumeric code names. Have you withdrawn that objection and are now substituting another? If so, what is the objection at this point? Please explain why they shouldn't be red linked. Chrisrus (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please create stubs just as I have done. It's easier than this debate, and better than getting blocked should another admin determine you are gaming the 3RR system by waiting 24 hours before continuing your crusade. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See, in the time it took you to formulate a response above, I'd have created another stub at Kenley Lass. So why don't you do something useful and create the stubs yourself rather than redlink everything and assume others will do the work for you? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, please do keep up the good work. You are right, that does seem easy for you to do, although unless acted on quickly they seem to in danger of speedy deletion. I will try to improve some of them and urge any reader of these words to do so as well. I think you may find it fun and interesting.
Anyway, back to the matter at hand, unless you don't address the concerns on the talk page, it's not edit warring. So I will revert tonight unless you explain your objection to red linking. Is it still about the ones with code names instead of English names, or have you withdrawn that reasoning? Is your new objection the fact that creating stub articles that will pass speedy deletion for each of these is even better than red linking and simple and easy to do? Chrisrus (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see where "speedy deletion" comes into it. You can create these stubs, and once again I disagree with your decision to relink the articles, (and in particular those which don't have real names), so continuing to do so is edit warring. I think your heart is in the right place but I'd hate for you to be blocked for gaming the system to avoid 3RR. Try creating the stubs yourself please, instead of relying on others to do the hard work. Please note, it was you who said a stub article would be overlooked, but if you insist on mindless redlinking, that's what you'll get. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that being so short would put them in danger of speedy delete. If I am wrong about that, I apologize.
You seem to be making the better the enemy of the good. What is your objection to redlinking? You seem to be saying that because creating stubs is better, redlinking is bad. Is that correct?
You also seem here to be returning to your original objection, that some have no name and therefore are not deserving of articles of any kind. Is that correct?
Thank you for creating the stubs. They are a great improvement. You are right, it definitely does seem easy for you. Please do continue.
As long as I addresses the concerns raised about the redlinking, it's not edit warring if I redo it after a reasonable amount of time has passed. That's not edit warring, that's just defending an edit. Chrisrus (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Defending an edit which has no consensus and has been reverted is edit warring. Creating one-line stubs is not great because they may never be improved. If an editor is interested (as you seem to be) in these animals, they should create really decent articles about them. In your own words "Basically empty stub articles don't do this as well, as readers won't be able to tell one from the other." I haven't got time to expand these articles at the moment, but I won't see a farm of redlinks added to the page just because you think it's a good idea and claim some kind of Wikiproject consensus. If you do that again, I'll report you for gaming the system to avoid 3RR. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You said "I completely buy into the idea of redlinks to encourage articles." Now you seem to be saying that you do not. Please agree that creating redlinks, while not as good as creating articles, is also good, so that this phase of the project may move ahead.
You say you haven't got time to do more, so I should understand. I thank you for the contribution you can make and do not object if you do no more. I ask the same from you.
Just because someone objects to an edit doesn't mean it has no concensus. The person has to have clear reasons why it doesn't constitute improvement. You have to say why redlinking is not progress. You seem to be saying that redlinking is bad because some have no normal name, because I haven't done more, and now a new one, that doing so will create a "farm of redlinks". Please clarify what you mean that redlinking would be bad because it would create a "farm of redlinks". One could see a farm as a good thing, because it's productive, so how is that bad? Chrisrus (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've got more to do than argue over this I'm afraid. I'll report you for edit warring if you restore the redlinks against consensus. I'll also create one-line stub articles if they are eventually reinstated which you didn't want. Cheers for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because, as you've said, redlinking is good as a spur to article creation, because I've answered your objection about those only named with an alphanumeric code, because the fact that creating articles for each would be even better than redlinking is no reason not to redlink, and because you have not explained the "redlink farm" objection, I will wait the appropriate amount of time and red link the rest. If that means you will carry out your threat, that will be your decision. Chrisrus (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. You want to go down the path of slow-motion edit warring, that's your call. Seems a shame when I've demonstrated to you how simple it is for you to create the articles you so desperately seek. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you revert without addressing the points, you will be the one edit-warring. Could you settle for a compromise?
Here, you seem to be saying that redlinking is bad because creating short articles would be better. Is that correct?
You also seem to be saying that creating stubs will not be better than redlinks at spurring articles for the rest of these. Is that correct? This would seem to contradict the above, but might be true. Which would be the better spur in the long run, stubs or redlinks, in your opinion? Your position is not clear to me on this. Which is the better spur, stubs or redlinks? Chrisrus (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I say that as far as I am aware there is nothing wrong with writing in redlinks to unmade notable articles and also that there is nothing wrong with linking pages after they have been created. I would like to add that I think that the article on the Dicken Medal looks very much improved to me than it was when I edited it some years ago and I note that it is now a Featured List. Some years ago, I made well over a dozen stubs on school pages in one or two evening making a few lines, a references section, an infobox, and adding the navbox to each. None have been deleted and they have gradually evolved with editing by many contributors over the years. Snowman (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha[edit]

Sasha and her handler were not likely to have been "shot dead in a Taliban ambush" as they were killed in a rocket attack.101.98.175.68 (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{Citation needed}} Chrisrus (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Provided. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Zembu[edit]

Was the Dickin Medal the only recognised medal for pigeons? I wonder if anyone has any knowledge of a medal I have, which appears to be for pigeons as it has a pigeon on it, with a shield below it and above it the letters "PP" which I imagine could mean "Pigeon Post". It is silver, and on the back has the makers mark V&S, an anchor, a lion and the letter C. These mean Birmingham and the Year 1902. So it pre-dates the Dicken medal, and before the First World War. I would add a photo of it but cannot see how to do that.--Zembu (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC) Zembu[reply]

The numbers don't add up[edit]

The numbers at the top of the article don't match the chart at the bottom. It says 18 dogs and 3 horses, but the chart has 31 dogs and 4 horses. I didn't bother to count the pigeons or the total number of animals to see if they match. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CA:4100:D800:5557:F8B1:9D26:2AAF (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read it again. It has a year range. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Dickin Medal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dickin Medal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dickin Medal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dickin Medal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate links in sortable tables[edit]

@The Rambling Man: could you provide any links to consensus established policy/guideline that duplicate links in sortable tables are encouraged or at least should not be removed (I can't find any)? Your edit summary, "sortable table so no guarantee first item is linked item after re-sort", accompanying your reversion of my edit to remove the duplicate links, was gratefully received, but I disagree that the re-sorting of a table from its default (and the obvious possible effects on visible link order) is justification for excessive duplicate linking. It is a user action, that may not be employed; the links are still on the page and the "first occurrence" guidance while minimizing duplication is only generally adopted as a convenience to readers. It can be argued that excessive links are an inconvenience. If the reader chooses to not maintain that order, that's really their choice. If there is no already established consensus, we will need to discuss this issue. Cheers. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 18:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I suggest you bring it up at WT:FLC where there has been a general consensus to link linkable items every time in a sortable table for around ten years. Or check sortable lists at WP:FL, of which there are thousands. I think you'll see the same approach. I have nothing more to add. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding; not a useful way to go about discussing anything (saying effectively that "there are some things somewhere near here that might say something about it if you can find them" is lazy and obstructive), but thanks anyway. I think it would be appropriate to have this discussion with a wider audience, and get some definitive guidance established. I'll look into it. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 20:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Get lost, calling me lazy and obstructive. If you had bothered to do any research into it, you'd know that a consensus exists, certainly for featured lists, to adopt this approach. Enjoy looking into it. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Most Recent Recipient" Part Outdated[edit]

Hey-o. I was looking at this article and noticed that it said that the most recent recipient of the Dickin Medal was Kuno (awarded on August 29th, 2020), but it's actually Leuk (awarded on April 23rd, 2021, almost eight months after Kuno). Admittedly, if I knew how to make the proper changes, I would have changed it by now. But I unfortunately don't, so I'll just put this here for someone else to take care of it. ;v;

1700 (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Military" award[edit]

Congrats to the writers for this very interesting article! Quick question though, that I can't find a clear answer to: my understanding is that it's not a military award, it's granted by PDSA, a non-public/non-military organization, the article doesn't mention the fact that it is, but the categories do. I don't find a clear answer on whether it qualifies as a military award. The military awards page on WP clearly states: "civil decorations awarded to military personnel should not be considered military decorations" (no reference though) but it seems to apply more to awards that have a military branch but for civil actions. Would you have a definitive answer? (Question is basically coming from FR:WP) Bombastus (talk) 07:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Querying the canonical direction of colours[edit]

I've noticed that the article states that the ribbon of the medal is "green, dark brown, and pale blue", but the photograph and ribbon bar show this in the opposite direction (blue, brown, green). The image on the PDSA website (linked in the article) shows the direction as stated in the text of the article, which makes me believe this to be the canonical direction. 86.31.144.174 (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dickin_Medal&oldid=1215992980"