Talk:Naval Long Service and Good Conduct Medal (1848)

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Orders, decorations, and medals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of orders, decorations, and medals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Orders, decorations, and medalsWikipedia:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsTemplate:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsOrders, decorations, and medals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Culture / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Naval Long Service and Good Conduct Medal (1848). 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/20150924110252/http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/ls_and_gc.htm to http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/ls_and_gc.htm

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) 21:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Award criteria - the qualifying period

It is alluded to that the qualifying period went up to eighteen years, then down to fifteen. I am not seeing more than fifteen years for the RN LSGC recipients I have looked at for WW1 and WW2. Is this a case of "the internet says" which is mixing British Army LSGC rules with those of the Admiralty? Had there been a levelling up with the British Army LSGC rules, I would have expected this to be reflected in Douglas- Morris's definitive work on this award. There is nothing whatsoever therein to back the wiki assertion that eighteen years service was needed. Keith H99 (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from page 5 of McCreery

The Royal Naval Long Service and Good Conduct Medal was initially awarded for 21 years of exemplary conduct in the Royal Navy; this period was later lowered to ten years, and then increased to 15 years.

This is in line with Douglas-Morris.

Confusingly, though, the Canadian award that superseded the Naval LSGC, in existence from 1925 to 1951, did require 18 years service, as did the equivalent award for the Canadian Army & RCAF, according to page 99 of McCreery. Keith H99 (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, two other sources state that the RCN LSGC qualifying period was 15 years, like that of the Royal Navy

https://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/medals-decorations/details/59

https://web.archive.org/web/20131017004918/http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhr-ddhr/chc-tdh/lsm-da-eng.asp

It only takes a moment to publish a falsehood, yet it takes a lot longer to get it remedied! Keith H99 (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that in 1977 the Long Service Medal for RAF and British Army were brought in line with the Royal Navy, so that a qualifying period of fifteen years was the same across all three services. This may be where the confusion has arisen. I am still not seeing any reliable source-based evidence that the RN LSGC qualifying period was ever 18 years. Keith H99 (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The same generic content was used as a summary for all three branches and their LSGC medals. The comment about the reduction from eighteen to fifteen was not taken out for the Royal Navy, which would appear to explain why this error came about. This comment was removed for all three services on 7 December 2016. Keith H99 (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]