Talk:Australian Antarctic Medal

Reserve Description - Axe

Hi Cinderella157. Thanks for contributing to the discussion on the Australian Antarctic Medal image. I originally put ice-axe myself but then took it out as I realised that even though its no doubt true, it’s not the wording used by the official description in the legislative instrument, and therefore is original commentary). It is so easy to get pinged on that. Kangaresearch 17:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Kangaresearch, happy to have done so. On my edit, I had added "pick axe" parenthetically after its "official" description. Perhaps it might be better in square brackets and I would not dispute it being better described as an ice axe. Doing so does not override the official description but is of benefit to the reader - otherwise the article text appears to be in error compared with the image since it is clearly not an axe in a conventional sense. Falls into WP:BLUE. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I do like your suggested solution and I have a secondary reference to support it (it is just less authoritative than the primary), so I have made the change as suggested and stylised it [ice-]axe. Reference: "Australian Antarctic Medal celebrates 25 years". Australian Antarctic Division. Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved 15 June 2020.

Do you mind if I copy part of this and put it on the article talk page, for the benefit of others in future? Kangaresearch 02:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Kangaresearch, happy for you to do so. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Kangaresearch 08:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: While I was looking at something else in the Gazette I came across the original Determination (for the Antarctic Medal) [1] which uses ice-axe, so while the 2008 Determination (which is the current one) only uses the description axe (and is technically the authoritative source) I have decided to go with the original 1989 Determination (even though it has been superseded) use of ice-axe, without the clarity brackets (as that is justifiable on what looks to be an administrative error in the drafting of the current Determination). I have removed the secondary reference used (as it was not authoritative and is now superfluous) and replaced it with the Gazette reference given. Kangaresearch 07:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Letters Patent

There is some inconsistency in use of case for Letters Patent on Wikipedia, as well as elsewhere generally. However, after a prolonged period of consideration, I am following the case convention used in the Australian legislative instruments for references to Letters Patent for our honours and awards in the Australian honours and awards system, which is to treat it as a proper noun and use Letters Patent (not letters patent). This is because the legislative instruments are the formal official source. Kangaresearch 06:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

How words and phrases are capitalised in legislation and like is not a reliable guide as to capitalisation more generally (see WP:SSF). Looking up my trusty Macquarie, the phrase is not capitalised. I suggest that it is unnecessary capitalisation per MOS:CAPS. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The key word is legal instrument, which is - in the context of use of Letters Patent in this article - is the short title of the formal legal instrument referred to. In the same way that Act is not act when used in this context, Letters Patent is not letters patent in this context (but I agree a reference to the general concept of letters patent, as opposed to a specific instrument, is not capitalised). As the MOS:CAP guideline states:

It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply... Wikipedia relies on [reliable] sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized.

The formal legal title of the Letters Patent in this article are Letters Patent Constituting the Australian Antarctic Medal 1987 [am 1997, 2011], and while secondary sources may sometimes use other formatting, they are not determinative as authoritative sources (such as legal reference and AMoS and the Government House guides). The Wkipedia MoS does recognise that for legal instruments, the legal convention for that jurisdiction is a relevant and reliable source. Kangaresearch 04:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kangaresearch, the terms would be capitalised if part of the full name or the short name (legislation often has a formal short name) but not when used alone even if it is referring to (say) the particular act. By analogy (per WP:MILMOS)), we might say: "The 2/9th Battalion was formed in ... The battalion's first commanding officer was ..." Per MOS:CAPS:"only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia". In this respect, government documents are not considered independent. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cinderella157, so you do agree, the short title [the formal wording, as opposed to short name] is capitalised. Apologies if that was not clear to you, but the legal short title is just Letters Patent of [date], and the formal long title is that previous given. See usage as per former High Court Justice Kirby [2], the Museum of Democracy [3], and these accepted and published PhD theses from two different tier one universities (one of which is yours as I understand it) [4] and [5]. As mentioned, the Wikipedia MoS does recognise that for legal instruments, the legal convention for that jurisdiction is a relevant and reliable source (The military unit example is not really specific to your query at hand, which is concerning legal documents). That claim that government documents are not considered independent is a curious one (given its breadth) - is there a RfC consensus specifically on that? Independent is to prevent POV (which is not NPOV) or known propaganda sources being relied upon - they may be reliable in that they come directly from that which the article is on, but are not NPOV and therefore are not independent. I would not think it was intended to operate to exclude official documents as a whole class (given the numerous issues that would create). With the formal short title, I am happy to add a note giving the formal long title to the first incidence of the short title if you believe that would avoid confusion between the misunderstanding of (not so) general use and what is the formal short title of an instrument. Regards Kangaresearch 04:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kangaresearch, when I refer to a formal short title, I refer to that which is formally given in the preliminary section of an instrument. The regulation for the medal does this. There are two issues, that of content and that of style, to which reliability of sources applies. The issue of content is quite separate from that of style. MOS:CAPS states: "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia" [emphasis added]. "Independence" is a specific criterion added for matters of style (ie capitalisation). It specifically addresses the tendency of sources close to the subject to add style "quirks" such as over-capitalisation. It is generally accepted that any source/body close to a subject tends to capitalise more often in respect to the subject - particularly government sources. This (in part) is an observation made after following many such discussions - but specifically, I can only point to the guideline (requiring independence) and to WP:SSF (already linked). I also point to the criterion of consistancy. A handful of sources does not demonstrate this and might be construed as WP:CHERRYPICKING. You have asked a question and now (apparently) you don't like the answer. I can only say that, if subjected to a formal review, it might give a reviewer familiar with the guideline cause for concern. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Evening Cinderella157. A curious response, but I note you have taken some time before coming back to it, so thanks for that. It seems to be drifting off into making personal attribute claims however, rather than being focused on the article under discussion, and I don't think that helps anyone. I am also confused by the claim of having asked a question, given no question was in the opening of this section - it only stated the reasons why (given the lack of consistency on capitalisation on Wikipedia for letters patent on honours and awards articles) why proper noun usage would be applied to the formal legal short title of the instruments in question. I can see you personally have another preference and this view is fixed, but on the basis of what you have argued I am not convinced of a legitimate reason to change it myself. I think the usual process for such things apply from here and it would be unproductive given some of the more emotional elements now present to continue making unnecessary comments. I thank you for your views on the article though, which I have noted, and I have asked an independent uninvolved administrator to take a look over things. All the best. Kangaresearch 13:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Repeated use of “article name” throughout the article

It seems a bit cumbersome to repeatedly use “Australian Antarctic Medal” throughout the body of the article. Perhaps “it” or even “the medal” would suffice for many of the subsequent uses after the first sentence of the lead? Unless the full proper name is needed each time so as to possibly avoid confusion with other medals, it might be best to not repeat each and every time. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, thanks for taking the time to read the Australian Antarctic Medal article. As you may have read, there are actually three medal names in the article, the Polar Medal, the Antarctic Medal (used until late 1987) and the Australian Antarctic Medal (used from 1988 and retrospectively applied back to 1987). A key requirement of MoS is that prose must be clear and understandable to an appropriately broad audience (beyond those who may have some familiarity with a particular area of information), and where potential confusion may exist, it is better to simply write a word or phrase out in full... [as] Wikipedia does not have the same space constraints as paper. Multiple medal names do mean some consideration is required to avoid potential confusion. The use of "it" as a substitute should be avoided due to the clear and understandable MoS requirement, although "medal" as a style preference (where misunderstanding is preventable) is a possibility that could be considered where appropriate. It is something for analysis. Thanks for the input. Kangaresearch 07:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

"Australian Antarctic Medal" is referred to by its full name 16(?) times throughout the article, including 4 times in the lead. it's not possible to use "the medal" or even "the AAM" in any of those other locations? It's not possible to rewrite a sentence like "The reverse (rear) of the Australian Antarctic Medal" as "The reverse of the medal" without any loss of clarity? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Anything is possible, subject to the guidelines (in particular, on style choice); whether it is an edit that should be made is another question. The use of "AAM", given it is also the post-nominal, would be inappropriate (as per the policy extract already given). As already mentioned, other proposed alternatives are something for analysis. An expectation that another editor instantly make changes without such consideration taking place would be unreasonable, particularly on a style preference issue (for which clear guidance on preferences exist). There can be a perception, when a sudden flurry of edits immediately take place, on an article an editor had not been involved in (immediately following some unrelated perceived conflict) as to whether they are being made for the benefit of the article. I assume these are being made in good faith, but it may be worth reflecting on the perception created (especially where the edits are stylistic choices). Kangaresearch 08:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

If you want to notify another editor like @AustralianRupert: of this discussion then you could simply ping them to the discussion. Do you think that the edits I made regarding MOS:DOCTOR, etc. were more WP:NOTHERE than WP:HERE? If that’s the case, than you could ask for clarification here on the article’s talk page or just revert outright per WP:BRD. Editors don’t need to get their edits pre-approved per WP:BOLD, but being BOLD doesn’t mean the edit was one that should’ve been made. Editors can just show up and edit at anytime if they feel they can improve it in some way. If you think that adding a Wikilink to Obverse and reverse, removing “the late” because it seems unnecessary for medals awarded posthumously, and removing “Dr”/“Professor” aren’t really improvements or aren’t accordance with relevant guidelines, then feel free to revert or discuss. I’m happy to discuss them with you or anyone else.

Anyway, moving back to the subject of this thread. You feel that AAM is not a good idea, but what about “the medal”. For example, the “Design” section seems to be only about the AAM, not the other medals mentioned in the article. Is it necessary to mention the medal by its full name 5 times. Will there be any loss of understanding if the full name is not used each and every time in that section? — Marchjuly (talk) 09:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)