Jump to content

Talk:List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listList of Australian Victoria Cross recipients 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 13, 2007Featured list candidatePromoted

Australian VC

[edit]

I think we need to separate out the latest recipient as he has received what's techincally a separate medal (following the precedent for the NZ VC. David Underdown (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I agree with that. I have added a ref for the time being to state that it was. If there are no objections I will do it 2 days from now. Regards. Woody (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether I would agree or not would be a function of what "separting out" actually means.
(In one sense, by virtue of the ref, he is already "separated out". However, I expect you have something "more separate" in mind.)
Hence, what form of "separation" do you have in mind? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the table and into the Lead. Woody (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the list of living recipients, we do list the hodlers of the separated VCs, but with a note. We probably ought to look at the categorisation scheme too. David Underdown (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys. Presumably the New Zealand wiki community have already addressed this issue? (I haven't yet looked I will do so soon.) What might be the reason(s) why we would do it differently? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(P.S. Have the Canadians awarded a VC yet? I don't think so, hence not much help there ... Pdfpdf (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
To be honest the Willie Apiata stuff was originally dealt with by the same people that are doing it now. (Me, David...) I think we need to distinguish between the two on the categorisation scale now, especially if more are to be awarded. The trouble is, most news organisation barely distinguish between the two and the Governments don't seem to be either, especially given that they are the same metal. (And no, the Canada one has not been awarded, but that is a separate medal, which makes it easier to distinguish.) Regards. Woody (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you need help, it sounds to me like my best move is to get out of your way and let you get on with it. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, if/when VC for Oz #2 comes along, you'll create a separate table? Pdfpdf (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Though if it doesn't happen for another almost 40 years ... )
I was thinking about that for a while. I think we would add a separate section to this page with a separate table if and when another VC is awarded. Given the amount and ferocity of operations at the moment I don't think we will have to wait for 40 years! ;) Woody (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you may be right. Pdfpdf (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
copied from Talk:List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign

Who took it upon themselves....

[edit]

to treat the "colonial" recipients of "separate" medals differently and not include them on this list. Are they of a different quality? There should be a discussion about it here. Albatross2147 (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be me amongst others, and there is a discussion about how separate commonwealth awards should be shown at Talk:List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients#Australian VC. They are separate awards now, and nowhere is colonial mentioned in this list and I resent what you are implying. Regards. Woody (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion should have taken place and a consensus reached. That is the way Wp works. In the public's mind the awards are still the same thing. The military and governments seem to want to maintain all the traditions associated with the "original" medal eg. the pension and salutes. If "commonwealth" and "constitutional and historical ties" are to mean anything then the non-British awards for the same sort of acts and with the same name should be included in the lists albeit with explanatory notes. Of course if the non-British awards are not qualitatively the same then the lists should be separate. I am sorry your feathers have been ruffled - woodpeckers (which I assume the name alludes to) usually don't have feelings :-) In any event Admins should not be thin skinned let their dudgeon get too high. Albatross2147 (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
end copy
(Cross posted more or less from Talk:List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign) A proper discussion should have taken place and a consensus reached. That is the way Wp works. In the public's mind the awards are still the same thing. The military and governments seem to want to maintain all the traditions associated with the "original" medal eg. the pension and salutes. If "commonwealth" and "constitutional and historical ties" are to mean anything then the non-British awards for the same sort of acts and with the same name should be included in the lists albeit with explanatory notes. Of course if the non-British awards are not qualitatively the same then the lists should be separate. Albatross2147 (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there was no need for a discussion. It was simply being bold: there is no need for a consensus on simple issues such as this, especially when it is considered non-controversial. By separating out the recipients we are not saying anything about them, the awards, the traditions: we are simply stating the fact that these recipients are not receiving the same medal in legal terms as the other recipients in these lists. Wikipedia is not the place to decide whether to keep commonwealth constitutional and historical ties, that is for politicians. We do not measure things in qualitative measures, we report the verifiable facts and that is what has been done here.
Admin skins are the same as any editor's skins, questioning someones integrity is bound to ellicit a distinctly cold response. Regards, Woody (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see the point you are making. Albatross2147 (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian VC - continuing ...

[edit]

Regarding this edit, I know it seems stupid to have a table with only one entry, but maybe that's the only way to have an impact on people looking in the main table for Donaldson and not finding him there? What do others think? Pdfpdf (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am coming round to it, we will see what others think. Woody (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree: I think making it a seperate list will just make the information harder for users to find. IMO the reason the Australian Honours system kept the name 'Victoria Cross' after it broke away from the Imperial system indicates that they are the same award - every other award was changed. Certainly I think any user that is interested in the finding out about awards of the Victoria cross to Australians would be interested in both those made under the imperial system and the latest one made under the Australian honours system. Anotherclown (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I think making it a seperate list will just make the information harder for users to find." - I'm not sure I understand. Harder than what? Harder than having them mixed together in the one list? Or do you mean something different to that?
Could you be a little more specific about how you think the information should be presented please?
" ... indicates that they are the same award ... " - I don't agree. Yes, they are similar in many ways (and the Oz medal & ribbon are identical to the "original"). But clearly they are NOT "the same" (as in identical.) If they were "the same", then there would be no point in having a separate "VC for Oz".
"Certainly I think ... " - Yes, I agree. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok sorry to be inprecise. What I mean is that having two seperate lists (on different pages) would be difficult for users to find or assimilate. I agree that the awards are 'technically' different but in the end they are all Australian Victoria Cross recipients - that is how the public views it and how it was intended when they created the new Australian Honours Systems (like I said previously why else keep the same name, design etc?). I think you are missing the point about them not being identical when you say 'if they were "the same", then there would be no point in having a seperate "VC for OZ". The reason they created the new award was not to make a different award, it was part of the creation of a comprehensive Australian honours system. In fact I will be bold and say that they are the same award. Yes there should be some way of delinating them as it is a significant fact (i.e awards under the Imperial or Aust Honours System) - but I don't think they should be treated any differently. I think removing the Donaldson award from the list as it currently stands however makes the information difficult for inexperienced users to access/understand. I also believe the lead to the article should be rewritten to spell out that the VC has been awarded under both the Imperial and Australian systems (and the history of this) and that this would complement the list. Anotherclown (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry, I somehow missed seeing your response.)
" ... having two seperate lists (on different pages) ... " - Agreed.
" ... in the end they are all Australian Victoria Cross recipients ... " - Agreed.
" I think you are missing the point ... but I don't think they should be treated any differently." - That covers a lot of ground and a number of points! For simplicity, I'll just say "Mostly agree."
"I think removing ... to access/understand." - Agreed. However, I understand why it was removed, and I agree with those reasons too! It seems to me that there are two perfectly good and justifiable approaches, but they produce opposite results ...
"I also believe the lead ... " - I'm unsure about this one. On the one hand it could be argued that this is a list, and the detail is (should be?) in the main article. On the other hand, I believe that what makes this page so attractive (in my opinion) is the fact that there is this information on the page. I like the idea of adding more information to clarify and inform. But I don't think I'd be very successful defending the idea against someone who was adamant about the first p.o.v. I mentioned.
Hmmm. I don't think that rates 2¢ - my 1¢ worth, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Past tense?

[edit]

I think we need a clearer distinction between the Victoria Cross (with wording like "formerly awarded") and the Victoria Cross for Australia (which has replaced it). Radagast3 (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The VC is also no longer part of the Australian Honours Order of Precedence, having been replaced by the newer award. Radagast3 (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking down your comments:
  • "I think we need a clearer distinction between the Victoria Cross" - Probably.
  • "(with wording like "formerly awarded") " - The ("Imperial") VC is still awarded (just not to Indians, Pakistanis, Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians and citizens of non-commonwealth countries.)
  • "and the Victoria Cross for Australia (which has replaced it)." - "Replaced" is somewhat ambiguous. It has only been "replaced" in certain circumstances. For example, Keith Payne's VC has not been replaced by the VC for Oz.
  • "The VC is also no longer part of the Australian Honours Order of Precedence, having been replaced by the newer award." - False. Australian Honours Order of Precedence#References, Ref 3: "Refers to both the Imperial Victoria Cross and the Victoria Cross for Australia." Order of Wearing, Page 5, Note 1. (Generally, foreign awards are worn after Australian awards, and postnominals of foreign awards are not recognised.)
Pdfpdf (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking that this needs some reworking too, but I'm not quite sure how to go about it. An Australian citizen could still be awarded the (original) VC if serving in, or on secondment to (e.g.) the British Army. Now the Aussies would presumably treat this as a foreign award (and the list as it currently stands states taht Australians serving with non-Aussie units aren't included, for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me), but certainly if said Aussie was actaully a serving member fo the British Army, the award would be fully substantive from the British point of view, just as an Australian citizen appointed OBE receives that award on a substantive, not honorary basis, even though the Australians now have their own honours system. David Underdown (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. With all the "ifs" and "buts" and "maybes", the wording of any changes would need to be chosen with extreme care! Pdfpdf (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(However, if an Australian was ever to be awarded a British VC and wear it in "first position", despite what the legislation says, I'd be very surprised if anyone wanting to enforce the legislation wasn't howled down by the media! ;-) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely the sort of thing I had in mind, however, we need a newer Mark Evans for it ever to become an issue, or the only other circumstance in which it might arise is Special Forces, where I have seen it stated that there's a degree of cross-posting between the British, Aussie and Kiwi SAS units (though as ever tryign to establish the truth of anythign related to the SAS is pretty tricky).
Superseded is probably the word we're looking for, the GC for example superseded various previous gallantry awards, but it wasn't until the 70s that the (living) holders of all those awards were required to substitute their original award for the GC. David Underdown (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to duplicate historical information from the Victoria Cross entry? Or just simply state that since 1975 Australia has it's own honours system and link to the Victoria Cross for Australia article. I suggest we list the 91 members of the Australian forces awarded the Victoria Cross; list the five serving with South African and British forces who Australia counts as Australian Victoria Cross recipients and a footnote that one Victoria Cross for Australia had been awarded. Anthony Staunton (talk) 08:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I notice in the lead of the article the links to each conflict point to the main Wikipedia article (i.e. World War I, World War II, Vietnam War) etc. I think it might be more benificial if they pointed to the article that deals with Australian involvement in that conflict (i.e. Military History of Australia during World War I, Military History of Australia during World War II) etc. I think this would probably be more relevant to users. This is may not the most controversial of suggestions but I figure as this page is already FA and quite a number of editors seem to have (understandably) invested considerable time in it I should throw this out for consideration before making the change. Anotherclown (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know to be honest, I'm ambivalent. I think that could be useful, though might come into conflict with WP:Easter egg (yes, there is a guideline called that). Actually, saying that, after re-reading that guideline, I don't think it will.
Should they be included? What do others think. Woody (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OzVC2

[edit]

OK! Well, as discussed at length above, we now have to decide on what we are going to do regarding Oz VC #2.

From what I can glean from above, I think the options are:

1. separate table on this page
2. merge into the table on this page
3. separate page titled something like List of Victoria Cross for Australia recipients
4. others? (please add any I've missed)
Opinions/Preferences
  • 1 - per Anotherclown. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Both 1 & 3 - Though I think it might be a bit early for 3. - perhaps when there's a third award? Pdfpdf (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 - seperate table on this page for now per Pdfpdf. IMO whether it is an Imperial VC or the VC for Australia which superceded it they are still all 'Australian Victoria Cross recipients' so I think it would make sense to have them on the same page. Anotherclown (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 - I think that option 1 makes sense, but I would like to hear other opinions first before we do anything. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 still seems like the best option, all the sources are so far treating them all as VC recipients (bit like having your cake and eating it too, but there we go). If the list gets really long the change to VC for Australia is the obvious place to break it, but I think we are some way off that necessity anyway. Of course, it's still perfectly possible that another Aussie could receive the original VC while serving with British forces. Or to complicate things, a Kiwi serving with Aussie forces (I'm guessing there must be some?) could receive the VC for Australia, which might require a separate list then for recipients fo the VC for Australia. David Underdown (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 I think that the separate table on this page is the best idea at this point. Another option would be to put this into a table on the Victoria Cross for Australia page but I don't think that would particularly work well, especially given David's and others points that they are still Australian Victoria Cross recipients. A separate page is not needed and wouldn't meet 3(b) of the featured list criteria. Woody (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

I won't "vote" as I am relatively new to this whole discussion, but I would make the point that there was obviously a clear intention on behalf of the creators of the Victoria Cross for Australia to maintain a sense of continuity. Certainly within the the ADF there does not seem to be any differentiation between the two and the Government and the ADF seemed very keen to push this line, with Keith Payne in attendance and all that. I understand that the physical medal is exactly the same (very generous of the British authorities to allow this, I must say) and it seems a little churlish to exclude VCforAust recipients from this list. I would also note that the VC criteria have evolved over time as well (if not formally, then at least informally - Indian Army, forfeitures etc.) and there is a case that the creation of the "dominion" VCs is just another step in this evolutionary process. Having said all that, legally and technically, this is a separate award and a separate table in this list article is probably the best way to show this. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One other comment Category:Afghanistan War (2001-present) recipients of the Victoria Cross does not appear to differentiate betwen any of the medals. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(My no doubt biassed) Summary of comments:
First: Thanks for all your comments; they have changed my opinion.
In the past, I've been somewhat blinkered by WP-expressed-opinions/implications that the two awards are independent, but my opinion had been challenged by the media's refusal to pay more than lip-service to the distinction between the two.
I am having NO trouble being convinced by, and agreeing with, Anotherclown's and everyone else's comments.
Hence, my personal opinion now is that option 1 is the only sensible solution. I now think that (for the reasons expressed by others, with which I agree) option 3 is a bad idea, and I can see option 2 leading to endless problems and hours of pointless debate.
What do others think? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I think. We all seemed to be of the same mind in this discussion. Woody (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for being late into this discussion. While Mattingn reasonably states that it was “a clear intention on behalf of the creators of the Victoria Cross for Australia to maintain a sense of continuity” I take the cynical view as that it was “a clear intention on behalf of the creators of the Victoria Cross for Australia to hide that a new decoration had been created”. Mattingn is spot on that “Certainly within the ADF there does not seem to be any differentiation between the two and the Government and the ADF seemed very keen to push this line, with Keith Payne in attendance and all that. ... Having said all that, legally and technically, this is a separate award ...” As a historian, I am very conscious of the frustration of Australian commanders in both world wars at the inability of many British commanders to understand that Australian forces should not be treated as if they were British forces. In this case the focus has been on the similarities and the differences have been ignored. While the VCFA is obviously inspired by the VC they are as different as the difference between the VC and the US MofH. Anthony Staunton (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly true. Yes they are "technically and legally different" and I don't see anyone denying that. Regardless if you could explain to me how an Australian recipient of either the imperial VC or the new VC for Australia isn't an "Australian Victoria Cross recipient" I would be most interested. There is a clear equivalence, both physically and sentimentally. The public, the military, the government and the media clearly think so anyway (is there anyone left, other than historians of course?). Hence Roberts-Smith being considered the "98th Australian VC" and hence us dealing with it on seperate list on the same page. Thinly veiled neo-republican arguments aside, why would we introduce an unnecessary level of disambiguation and seperate the lists? Surely a reader of one of your books would expect you to cover both the imperial VC and the VC for Australia in the same title so why would a wiki reader be any different? Anotherclown (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Badcoe's VC?

[edit]

Does anyone know where Peter Badcoe's VC is?

The AWM issued a press release 21 May 2008 "welcoming" the VC medal ([1]). The last I heard (in 2009) was that after a stint in the SA Museum, it was going on tour, ([2]), and "After the tour, the Badcoe Victoria Cross will go on permanent display in the Hall of Valour at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra." ([3]) However, Badcoe is not mentioned on the AWM list of VCs on display. ([4]) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW: A list of AWM Media Releases appears at http://www.awm.gov.au/media/releases/ Pdfpdf (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I still can't track down where his VC medal is ... Pdfpdf (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is clean up required?

[edit]

I was about to update the section on Separate Commonwealth awards and it occurs to me that rather than expanding the section perhaps the three paragraphs should be condensed into one paragraph along the lines:

Today, most Commonwealth countries have their own honours systems separate from the British Honours System. Three countries—Australia, Canada and New Zealand have named their highest awards in honour of the Victoria Cross. See Victoria Cross for Australia, Victoria Cross (Canada)and Victoria Cross for New Zealand

If there is not a Wiki policy against duplication then there should be one. I am not sure how many pages are related to the main Victoria Cross article but it is a lot. Many of these pages duplicate information from the main article and changes in the main article are not necessarily reflected in the related pages. Anthony Staunton (talk) 04:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients. 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.

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) 05:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients. 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.

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) 14:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Posthumous award - Weathers, L C

[edit]

Modern references such as the three volume Victoria Cross and the George Cross: The complete History in Appendix 2 in Volume 3 at page 822 list Weathers, L C. as a posthumous award. It is becoming an accepted view that a posthumous award is an award in which the recipient has died before his award is gazetted. Tricks of the past, such as the back dating of the VC awarded to Hamilton, W R P to two days before he was killed have been ignored and the actual date of the gazette is the criteria. Anthony Staunton (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients. 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.

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) 22:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients. 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.

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) 13:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Australian_Victoria_Cross_recipients&oldid=1208207275"