Talk:James Park Woods

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on James Park Woods. 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/20120216050757/http://www.aif.adfa.edu.au:8080/showPerson?pid=331633 to http://www.aif.adfa.edu.au:8080/showPerson?pid=331633
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219022818/http://www.hollywood.ramsayhealth.com.au/Our-Hospital/a-history-of-caring.aspx to http://www.hollywood.ramsayhealth.com.au/Our-Hospital/a-history-of-caring.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does anyone else think there's a need for something similar to this edit, which is one of mine that was reverted. I decided not to discuss it further at the time because the article was featured on the Main Page.
However, I still think the sentence is problematic as it stands. To me it seems to imply that a higher award than the Victoria Cross has since been created, particularly to anyone unfamiliar with Commonwealth awards. I think the word "could" is enough in an introductory sentence to indicate past tense. Details about the 1991 creation of the Victoria Cross for Australia could be given further down in the article if needed. ( pinging as a courtesy.) Meticulo (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've used this formulation for half-a-dozen VC FAs and no-one has questioned it to my memory, so I think it is fine. I'd be happy to add a note in the body to explain that it has now been superseded by the VC for Australia. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:11, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've have used similar wording (as in, "at the time") in the context of articles for New Zealand VC recipients, although only one of those has been brought forward for FA consideration so it is not as well tested as Peacemaker67's examples. In the article body for these articles, I have a cited explanatory text to the effect of "Instituted in 1856, the VC was the highest gallantry award that could be bestowed on a soldier of the British Empire." At A-Class level at least this has not attracted any issues. Zawed (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There are various explanation why its no longer the highest award and "at the time" doesn't imply any particular explanation. A note that the VC was replaced in 1991 with the VC for Australia would give that explanation if it was felt necessary. --Find bruce (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: My reading of the phrase "at the time" seems a solitary one, so I concede. I've added to the Later life section an explanatory sentence about the Victoria Cross for Australia. Please improve as needed (particularly my citation style, which doesn't seem to fit with others in the footnotes). Thanks, Meticulo (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Highest award