Talk:Gold Medal (RGS)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gold Medal (RGS). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927221002/http://www.rgs.org/NR/rdonlyres/C5962519-882A-4C67-803D-0037308C756D/0/GoldMedallists18322011.pdf to http://www.rgs.org/NR/rdonlyres/C5962519-882A-4C67-803D-0037308C756D/0/GoldMedallists18322011.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 21:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Split?

I fail to see why the two medals are covered by a single article, so I'd suggest splitting them. Suggestions? Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I believe the reason may be because both are among the highest decorations issued by the Royal Geographical Society. But I'll take you up on that suggestion by announcing my intent to overhaul the article first, and then, in all likelihood, splitting them, as I believe there's much to be improved. Jay D. Easy (t • c) 13:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Jay D. Easy: what's the status of this? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 14:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Piggybacking off wikidata work done by @Ghouston:, I've started a draft list (Draft:List of recipients of the Founder’s Medal) after which I plan to do the same for the Patron's Medal. Would appreciate feedback as the intention is to display the data using a Wikidata list. Hopefully this would help bring about an effective split.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list for the Founder’s Medal is largely complete; some award rationales are still needed. It would also be helpful to have a better way of linking the wikidata references. That said, it's my intention to shortly move to the Patron's medal.--Labattblueboy (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of recipients of the Founder’s Medal is complete. Articles have been redirected to either Founder's Medal or Patron's Medal (or similar derivatives). The last step is to create an article or list for the Patron’s Medal.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Axolotl Nr.733 defo a split. How about the following format:

We keep the three intro paragraphs. Down underneath we create an intro line to the section titles and then link them like this:

Gold Medal (RGS) Recipients since 1970

Gold Medal (RGS) Recipients (1901–1970)

Gold Medal (RGS) Recipients (1832–1900) Saussure4661 (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of recipients of the Patron's Medal is now working its way along. After it's brought into the main space I would suggest all the recipient sections could be deleted as they will be addressed in the two list articles.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So is the plan to move Draft:List of recipients of the Patron's Medal into mainspace and then make this page a disambiguation page between the two? This would make sense, but then I would rename the two pages Founder's medal and Patron's medal instead of keeping them as lists. They already contain more prose each than this combined article does! Felix QW (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any progress on this split? This is currently the longest ongoing discussion in English Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 02:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for a WP:REFUND of Draft:List of recipients of the Patron's Medal, which should facilitate this split. Felix QW (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion stands: Move Draft:List of recipients of the Patron's Medal to main space as Patron's medal, move List of recipients of the Founder’s Medal to Founder's medal and turn this page into a two-page dab. If there is no opposition to this, I would be happy to implement that. Felix QW (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops sorry for butting in, I am so used to these tags being applied w/o any discussion ensuing that I didn't even check, my bad. Anyway, I'm just a drop-in (brought here by the flag) and would not interfere with your vigorous and cogent discussion, carry on, just want to note that the article as it stands does not say why the two medals are different, doesn't say that they have different criteria, to me it looked like they award two gold medals (organizations will do that) and gave them different names rather then just saying gold medal for both, may for remembrance of two different people. That's what it looks like. Apparently they are different enough that (like, say, the Nobel Prizes or say baseball awards for pitching and hitting categories etc) the reader would mostly not benefit by seeing the winners side by side at a glance, right? My 2c. Herostratus (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I was personally not involved in the decision itself. However, several other editors were complaining about the 6-7 years this discussion had dragged on, so coming in from helping out with the splits backlog and seeing clear consensus to split from the 4 editors who did venture an opinion, I thought I'd finally complete the technicalities and bring this to an end... and then I must have forgotten. I think it's best if I just promote the draft to mainspace now, perform the renames as suggested and then, after 7 1/2 years, call this a day. Felix QW (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]