Talk:List of Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients

message: In my opinion, I believe that a "start" rating by the Military history WikiProject is absurd because this is not an "article", it is a "list" and it is about as complete as it is going to get.  Since when are lists' rated?
Second, how could the Wiki Project Mexican-Americans rate this list as mid-importance?.. A list that never exsisted before about our "Hispanic" heroes (not only Mexican-Americans) is only "mid-important"? I'm sorry, I feel that it is very important.
That's how I feel about those so called ratings.  Tony the Marine 17:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on Ratings

message: *Cleanup links from header WP:MOSHEAD
*use actual bulleted list format WP:LIST
**Clean up blurbs when there is already an article
Circeus 16:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: to-do cleanup

message: I may concede that this is a list, but could someone please capitalize Hispanic and make it singular? -Murcielago 21:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: OK

message: From WP:LIST:
:This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It has general acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.
(Bold mine).  I respectfully disagree that this article should follow the standard bulleted list guideline.  In this case, the "list" provides specific information about Medal of Honor recipients; not all of whom have articles.  There are other examples of "lists" that have additional information:
* List of Medal of Honor recipients
*Commandant of the Marine Corps has an embedded list following a short introduction.
It is my feeling that this "list" should remain as it is.  The format is quite readable; provides encyclopedic information; is standardized; etc.  
— ERcheck (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Specific information should be relevant to the list's topic. the one we have here is not. If any "specific information" should be there, (and especially here for those missing articles), it should be why they received the medal. Or you could (almost should) reuse the same format as  List of Medal of Honor recipients, since this is basically a more targetetd version of it. Circeus 23:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I think the "list" is in its nascent stage, and I was hoping to bulk it up a bit, myself.  Realistically speaking, there may not be enough information for a whole stand-alone article for many of these folks.  Categorizing it in the same way as List of Medal of Honor recipients seems like it would hobble us.  I understand Circeus's reasoning, but I think of this as an "expansion" of the MOH list, rather than a "more targeted" MOH list.  Notably, unlike other lists, this one isn't going to grow out of control, as the dues for joining the club are too high.  Ideally, I think each MOH winner should have a paragraph or so summary, with a photo of them on the right.  The list formats available make that cumbersome and strange.  -Murcielago 23:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not an expansion of the MOH list, it is a subset of it. No amount of reasoning can change the fact that every single element of this list is also (or should be, as some are not listed) automatically an element of List of Medal of Honor recipients. And I think the table format I have below can easily accomodate your proposal. Adding a column for images would be easy.  Circeus 23:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Circeus, see my comments above.  This one leaves out one of the most interesting subjects to me: place of birth (that's what got me interested in this list in the first place), and see my comments above about the ones that won't get more than a stub in their stand-alone article.  -Murcielago 23:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they wouldn't have articles, then we just don't link them. And place of birth can be added too, as is. Circeus 23:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The table above is a nice format, but with the amount and type of information that is appropriate for each individual entry, the table would become unwieldy.  (I'm considering using a similiar format for another article that needs only a few columns.) — ERcheck (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List format

message: here is an example of what I would consider a good entry:
*Linked Name
**Year of award, reason
*France Silva
**1901, For distinguished conduct in the defense of the civilian legation in Beijing between 28 June and 17 August 1900
Note that this information could alternatively be presented in a table, instead:
Name            	Yearawarded    	Reasons of citation
Boxer Rebellion 	Boxer Rebellion	Boxer Rebellion
France Silva    	1901           	For distinguished conduct in the defense of the civilian legation in Beijing between 28 June and 17 August 1900
World War II    	World War II   	World War II
Harold Gonsalves	1946           	For sacrificing in life in Okinawa to save his comrades' lives on April 15, 1945.
What do you think? Circeus 23:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Circeus, see my comments above.  This one leaves out one of the most interesting subjects to me: place of birth (that's what got me interested in this list in the first place), and see my comments above about the ones that won't get more than a stub in their stand-alone article.  -Murcielago 23:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they wouldn't have articles, then we just don't link them. And place of birth can be added too, as is. Circeus 23:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The table above is a nice format, but with the amount and type of information that is appropriate for each individual entry, the table would become unwieldy.  (I'm considering using a similiar format for another article that needs only a few columns.) — ERcheck (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Example

message: The citations pages on the U.S. Army site show some basic information that might be a nice set of standard items to include; then additional info/comments could be added:
* Rank, Unit, Military Branch. Date and Place of Action. (Optional Date of Award). Place of Birth.
The date of award is of note when it is much later than the action (as in the case of African-American World War II Medal of Honor recipients, who were recognized in 1997).  I do not know yet whether this would apply to any of the men on this list. — ERcheck (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Basic info

message: All references in this list retrieved on 2007-06-02
* 
*
*
*
*
— ERcheck (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on notability / note of this group

message: Needs disambiguating. City or state? Aille (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Chihuahua, Mexico]]

message: I am baffled, what is the point of adding the asterisk? Why doesn't the violet background alone suffice? Irish Melkite (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubled designators? 

message: By some definitions, Portuguese counts as Hispanic. If so, the Portugese-American Leroy A. Mendonca should be included in the Korean War section.2600:8805:5800:AD00:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Googling shows quite a debate about this, so I won't belabor the point.2600:8805:5800:AD00:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Does Portuguese count?