This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
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:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Pennsylvania 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Why is "Medal of Honor" part of the article title? Shouldn't it be "John Wainwright (military officer)" or similar? (unsigned and undated question by prior poster)
The article title, "John Wainwright (Medal of Honor)" is correct, and should not be changed. The phrase "Medal of Honor" has been used in the titles of articles for multiple U.S. military officers to help Wikipedia readers differentiate between medal winners who had the same surname and to differentiate soldiers with the same surname who won the medal from those who did not. Changing the parenthetical from "Medal of Honor" to "military officer" would, therefore, create an inconsistency between the formatting of multiple articles. Additionally, the use of "Medal of Honor" rather than "military officer" is particularly important in this officer's case because there were two men named "John Wainwright" in the same immediate family, and both became U.S. military officers. (The father won the Medal of Honor for his service as a military officer during the American Civil War; the son became a notable naval officer; so relabeling as "John Wainwright "military officer" would create unnecessary confusion.)
47thPennVols (
talk)
13:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)reply
For the records, it wouldn´t be a problem as long as the son or other John Wainwrights didn´t have articles on their own. However there currently is another John Wainwright who was a military officer and has a page,
John Wainwright (Royal Navy officer). So while there are other options this one works out pretty well. ...
GELongstreet (
talk)
18:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)reply
It's a style convention used by a number of Civil War researchers at academic institutions, archivists, et. al. (I suspect the phrase may have evolved from "Three Months' Men", which was used to differentiate Civil War vets with short-term service records from those who served for three-year terms and/or the duration of the war.) As with a number of American Civil War terms, there are a range of variants (3-month men, three months' service, etc.).
47thPennVols (
talk)
22:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
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:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Pennsylvania 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Why is "Medal of Honor" part of the article title? Shouldn't it be "John Wainwright (military officer)" or similar? (unsigned and undated question by prior poster)
The article title, "John Wainwright (Medal of Honor)" is correct, and should not be changed. The phrase "Medal of Honor" has been used in the titles of articles for multiple U.S. military officers to help Wikipedia readers differentiate between medal winners who had the same surname and to differentiate soldiers with the same surname who won the medal from those who did not. Changing the parenthetical from "Medal of Honor" to "military officer" would, therefore, create an inconsistency between the formatting of multiple articles. Additionally, the use of "Medal of Honor" rather than "military officer" is particularly important in this officer's case because there were two men named "John Wainwright" in the same immediate family, and both became U.S. military officers. (The father won the Medal of Honor for his service as a military officer during the American Civil War; the son became a notable naval officer; so relabeling as "John Wainwright "military officer" would create unnecessary confusion.)
47thPennVols (
talk)
13:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)reply
For the records, it wouldn´t be a problem as long as the son or other John Wainwrights didn´t have articles on their own. However there currently is another John Wainwright who was a military officer and has a page,
John Wainwright (Royal Navy officer). So while there are other options this one works out pretty well. ...
GELongstreet (
talk)
18:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)reply
It's a style convention used by a number of Civil War researchers at academic institutions, archivists, et. al. (I suspect the phrase may have evolved from "Three Months' Men", which was used to differentiate Civil War vets with short-term service records from those who served for three-year terms and/or the duration of the war.) As with a number of American Civil War terms, there are a range of variants (3-month men, three months' service, etc.).
47thPennVols (
talk)
22:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)reply