Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Greece

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello! I just created the page of the Wiki-project and completed the first phase of the initial work needed. I used as basis for this page the Wikipedia:WikiProject History of India and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. I regard this choice of mine as recommended benchmarking.

Many things are left to be done. And I'd continue to work, but I feel already very tired. I hope that the Greek Wikipedians and all the Wikipedians of the world, who are interested in Greek history are going to embrace this effort. These are some of the things that I've in mind, but not the courage to to initiate right now, after all these hours of work:

• Place the template of the Wikigroup (which you can change if you donot like it, the userboxes as well) in article within the scope of the Group. I've already done that with Pericles, metapolitefsi and Greek War of Independence.
• Assess these articles and create an assessment department. I assessed metapolitefsi, but I did not have the time to work on the assessment department.
• Create a peer-review department for all those who want to get their article to GA or FA status and want some suggestions.
• After creating these departments, make a template navigation.
• Fill the to-do list and propose further plans.
• Think about the creation of task forces. Examples:Ancient history task force, Byzantine History task force or Modern History task force.
• Recruit members.
• Possibly create a newsletter like Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Outreach/Newsletter August 2006.
• Initiate collective collaborations and, possibly, choose an article for monthly or weekly co-operations.
• Discuss about further plans.

Please, feel comfortable to participate and contribute.--Yannismarou 16:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Another new article 2 wikiproject articles template 3 Assessments 4 Collaboration of the month? 5 POV articles 6 Newsletter 7 George Grivas 8 Tagging talk pages and assessing articles 9 Feautured articles needing citations and our contribution 10 Anarchism in Greece 11 Battle of Greece 12 Phanariotes 13 Cretan War 14 Talk:Iraklion Archaeological Museum 15 New articles 16 Project directory 17 Articles that should be within the scope of the project 18 New articles section 19 What about... 20 Ecumenical Patriarch 21 POV disputes 22 Greek Mythology endangered in FARC 23 Wikipedia:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board 24 Complex Draco move 25 Alopekis dog 26 Request for article "Greek famine of 1941-42" 27 Pontic genocide 28 Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece 29 Welcoming form 30 Request of Template Removal 31 FA candidacy of a related article 32 Wikipedia Day Awards 33 Portal:Military of Greece 34 Constantine Karamanlis 35 KKE Interior 36 categorization of Roman-era Greeks 37 New Democracy (Greece) 38 Some suggestions 39 Greek War of Independence up for ACID 40 POV-fork detected 41 Articles' quality, rating and WPHOG template 42 Giorgos Siantos

[edit] Another new article

In case I've done something wrong and you've missed it, I started a new article yesterday for the Greek Expeditionary Force (Korea). While working on several different aspects of the Korean War and other elated pages, I've noticed that the countries that participated seemed to be lacking pages denoting the sacrifices their countries forces made. And while I was researching some information for an article on Outpost Harry, I ran across what I think was enough information to begin an article. So far it's pretty much a mess. I copied in some of the relevant information I found from two different web sites, but I'm sure there's probably more. The current state of the formatting is terrible, etc. I was just in a rush yesterday and didn't want to lose the information I'd found and I think all of the participating nations should eventually have pages denoting their forces sacrifice. Any help anybody could provide would be appreciated. I would imagine there's a lot more information available in Greek than English. Thanks. wbfergus 11:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikiproject articles template

Hello, I noticed we 've been putting the wikiproject template on greek-history-related articles. I've also noticed that some of us place the template on the main article space, not the talk page. I believe we should be adding the template on talk pages, as I've seen for example the wikiproject military history wikipedians do. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out Michali--my mistake and I will correct it!Argos'Dad 22:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in the talk page.--Yannismarou 13:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessments

I thank the members of the group who have started putting the template and rating articles. Just be careful about the criteria we should use, in order to evaluate an article. Just check the assessment scale in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. For instance, I saw that History of modern Greece was rated as A-Class. This is not correct, since the article has just 3 inline citations and very few references. This is very poor for an A-Class article. It may not even meet criteria for GA. Again, thank you!--Yannismarou 15:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Greece/Assessment

I now created an assessment department with instructions and other useful information. I also gave the possibility for anybody who wants it to ask the assessment of an article by the group members, if he does not want to conduct it himself.
In the Wikiproject military history A-Class status is awarded only after an official request, review and decision of the group after the request. I donot think if you want to establish a similar procedure in our project. The fact that we are not too many, in fact for the time being, could be a problem.--Yannismarou 16:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration of the month?

Would you like to establish a collaboration of the month? I have in mind some articles that might need our attention.--Yannismarou 17:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV articles

Adam talked about "the tendency of many contributors (not just Greek ones, of course) to write patriotic history".

I think the project could go in POV articles and improve them through collaboration. I ask Adam and other users to name such articles and propose them for improvement. I think this is a very interesting field for action.

Recently, me, Argos' Dad, Dr. K, Rastapopoulos, Michalis and others got involved in Metapolitefsi that had similar problems and I think we managed to improve the article. This proves we can achive things.--Yannismarou 08:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed Adam's comments not because I disagreed with them, but because they were out of place. The rubric asks for member's names and area of specialty or academic qualifications. It does not ask people to pronounce how Greek/non-Greek they are. Of course there are some disgustingly POV articles out there relating to Greek history, but this project is about improving these. The project members area capable of doing that without the guidance of a self-appointed supervisor.--Damac 08:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you say and I think there is no reason to continue discussing this matter. The most important thing now is Adam, you, me and all the other members to point out which articles are POV and try to improve them.--Yannismarou 08:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

For the issue of tentative edits, I propose that we create a special task-force or at least a subsection in the goals. •NikoSilver• 10:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll add it to the goals. If somebody thinks something better or doesn't like the wording, please edit. A special task-force is a nice thought, but I think we should first have the main project working properly.--Yannismarou 11:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newsletter

Per the example of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Outreach/Newsletter_August_2006 and others, I propose that Wikipedia:WikiProject_History_of_Greece#Open_tasks is forwarded monthly to all members. I am not sure how this can be done though... •NikoSilver• 10:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll work it out in the next days.--Yannismarou 11:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Grivas

I think the article desperately needs an image of Grivas. I 'd be glad if someone could find one. Mitsos 18:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It also needs citations and wikifation.--Yannismarou 18:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.

The plugin has two main modes of operation:

• Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
• Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)

As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.

For more information see:

• About the plugin
• About support for "generic" WikiProject templates
• User guide
• About AWB (AutoWikiBrowser)

Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 13:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feautured articles needing citations and our contribution

• I think this is a very important issue. Some featured articles within the scope of the project have no inline citations. I think this is a very important problem, because they may lose their FA status, something we donot want. These are the FA articles with such problems I've noticed:
• Parthenon
• Treaty of Devol.--Yannismarou 06:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• • And don't forget Byzantine Empire; in my opinion, apart from Parthenon, no Greece-related article risks more of loosing its FA status.--Aldux 10:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • Yes, I forgot it. And the fact that FAR is getting harsher and harsher is not good for these articles. As far as Byzantine Empire is concerned, I hope that some of the members of the group who have declared their interest in the Byzantine history will participate in this discussion and will get motivated.--Yannismarou 12:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • • And also George Grivas. Mitsos 15:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• You are right. Just let me tell you that this not a FA.--Yannismarou 20:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, of course, sorry I didn't looked at the title. Mitsos 10:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchism in Greece

This article certainly needs to be improved. What do you think? Mitsos 10:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• It needs expansion, citations, sources and other things. The fact it is tagged is not good. Do you intend to start rewritting? If yes, count on my support and assistance (although I'd not determine myself exactly as an anarchist!). I also think about creating a peer-review section, where we can review and thoroughly examine articles like this needing our help.--Yannismarou 12:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I 'm not an anarchist either, (μαλλον το αντιθετο...) so I don't think I can write much about anarchism in Greece. However, I think it's very important and someone who is interested could do it. Mitsos 15:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Also we need to work at George Grivas. Mitsos 15:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• By the way, the αντιθετο is a nice article! Well-done! For Anarchism in Greece I donot have many sources but for George Grivas I could do some things.--Yannismarou 20:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Me and Michalis Famelis have worked much on Hrisi Avgi. I will see what I can do with Anarchism in Greece later. Grivas certainly needs to be improved. Mitsos 11:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• I gave Hrisi Avgi a review. You can see it in the article's talk page.--Yannismarou 14:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Greece

This article has been vastly improved although I welcome other editors to go and further improve it. More importantly it is nominated for "A-class" and I was hoping some of you can go and comment. Thanks. Periklis* 03:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'll comment and I'll also give the article a thorough review. I had a quick look on it and my first comment is that it is really good.--Yannismarou 12:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phanariotes

In my opinion this is an article that should be within the project's priority list. Phanariotes are of invaluable importance to the rebirth of modern Greek nationalism, the Greek war of independence and the very foundation of the Greek Kingdom. Instead, the article currently focuses on the Phanariote regime in the Danubian provinces, which is of secondary importance to Greek history and to the Phanariote sphere of influence. It's being 'protected' by Romanian editors, whose edits and arguments are based on one-sided views and original reasearch. Basically the real subject of the current article is the "Phanariote rule in Romania", and I have numerous times offered to rename it and start a Phanariotes article from scratch, but it was refused - urging me to make edits on the same article. Due to some disputes I never did it when I had the chance, and right now I don't have the time to devote myself on this (it requires large-scale additions). Up until recently the articles of the most prominent Phanariote families were under their "Romanized" names (e.g. Mavrocordato, Ipsilanti, Kantacouzino etc), but I took care of that. The article must reflect what Phanariotes are really famous for, and the Phanariote rule in Romania must become a mere section (or even a separate article if it becomes too long), but not the topic of the article Phanariotes. I urge the members of this project to start their research in order to eventually assimilate this article in the History of Greece series. Users who live in Greece should find little difficulty in gathering plentiful and credible sources. Miskin 17:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"whose edits and arguments are based on one-sided views and original reasearch" - deliberate misinformation; I and others have encouraged Grek users to contribute, as User:Greece666 may attest, and as it was already made known to Miskin. "the most prominent Phanariote families were under their "Romanized" names (e.g. Mavrocordato, Ipsilanti, Kantacouzino etc)" - deliberate misinformation (the names were as given by the 1911 Britannica, and one cannot blame Romanian editors, who actually did little work on those articles in general, for not knowing Greek conventions or even Greek names; the versions of the names as present there were far from "being Romanian" - the Romanian variants sound and look quite different from those, as anyone with eyes to see may read in the Romanian versions as indicated in the respective articles; I would believe Miskin not being aware of that nuance, if this was to have happened a while back: however, I have told his this numerous times by now, and he kept manipulating the truth to prove a point; newly-created articles). If the dispute is solved by now, I am writing this because Miskin has shown himself surprised that I would have something to reproach his tactics. I did not demand of him to apologize for misrepresenting my point, but I demanded he cease doing it. Hopefully, he shall. Dahn 20:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your remarks and comments. Your valuable contribution to the article is undisputable. But there are also other different opinions for some specific issues. I just think it would be better not to split this dialogue, but to keep it in the talk page of Phanariotes. I again encourage the members of the group to go through the article and express their opinions. By the way, Dahn you're of course invited to participate in the project, if you wish it.--Yannismarou 20:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of your remarks, but I believe that we can co-exist with the current editors. I lean towards expansion of the current article, but, if we are provoked, we can demand a voting asking for the renaming of the article and the creation of a new "real" Phanariotes article. I've commented in Talk:Phanariotes and I think I've made clear my position. I intend to improve the article, since I have some good sources (some googling could also help), but the problem is that I'm also working on some of my own articles now. I hope other members of the project will also help. Thanks for your valuable remarks and your active participation in the project.--Yannismarou 18:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all for your quick response. I also left a comment there but I already know that it won't change much. What we have to do in the near future is to gather up our sources in order assimilate this article into the Greek history series. Regards. Miskin 23:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cretan War

This article needs a bit more improvement and I'd like the opinion of some editors to see how it can improve and also if possible an informal review and if it can receive a WP HIstory of Greece rating. Kyriakos 03:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Kyriako, I've no problem to give the article an informal review, but I think we can make the review official! I've just created the peer-review section. It works like the one of the Military project and, in any case, there are detailed instructions (I just hope everything works fine!). So, you (and every other Wikipedian) can submit the article there and have also a formal review. I can give you also an informal one, but I in a formal peer-review you may have better gathered and organized the reviews. In any case, the decision is yours. Tell me what you prefer.--Yannismarou 12:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Yanni, I'd prefer a peer review. Kyriakos 23:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Iraklion Archaeological Museum

User Ghirla had the perceptiveness to point out the inconsistency between the naming of the articles Heraklion and Iraklion Archaeological Museum. He informed me about this problem, and, for this reason, I decided to trhrow a poll in order to find a solution for this inconsistency. Please check Talk:Iraklion Archaeological Museum and cast your vote or express your opinion. Thank you!--Yannismarou 13:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New articles

Should we add a new subsection dedicated to the listing of Greek history related articles just created? This would help a lot on keeping a collective eye on all new additions, that may lose themselves in the mare magnum of the subject.--Aldux 16:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a nice idea. Can you substantiate it a bit? How do you imagine the structure and the function of this section?--Yannismarou 15:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Every time we create an article, or find an article just created, we add it to the list, with the date of creation and subdividing the new entries between Ancient, Byzantine and Modern subsections.--Aldux 23:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice, I think! I personally agree. I hope that other members will express their opinions too. But I think that you can start it if you want. I can also start it, but not before the Week-end. Until then I don't have the adequate time.--Yannismarou 12:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In case you were wondering, I've wikistalked this talk and I couldn't agree more! •NikoSilver• 13:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, guys! We'll go on with it. If you have time, you can make the beginning; otherwise, I will start it within the next few days.--Yannismarou 14:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 17:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles that should be within the scope of the project

• Great Fire of Smyrna
• Greek Civil War
• Pontic Greek Genocide
• Georgios Grivas

Also, Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) was greatly expaned and must be re-rated. Mitsos 20:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I added the banner of the project and rated the articles you mentioned. I hope your useful comments will attract the interest of other members as well. Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) can't go higher than it is until it gets properly citated, cleaned up, untagged and until the stubby sections that exist now get fixed. This is my opinion. Unless, of course, it goes for GAC (Good Article Candidacy) and it passes; in this case it will automatically be upgraded to category GA (Good Article), but I donot think that it has any chance as it is now.--Yannismarou 11:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New articles section

I created a new articles sub-section according to the discussion we previously had. It looks stubby, but I hope it will attrack the attention it deserves by the members of the group.

It is essential for the functioning of the project to list the new articles within the scope of this project in this section, so that we can categorize, rate and watch them. Please, show to this section the attention it deserves and list there the new article you create. The lack of such a section was a deficiency Aldux underscored.

I also created an Announcement section in the main page I placed it at the top of it with the open tasks. I did that in order to attract immediate attention. Please, feel free to put there any important announcements for our project. Thanks!--Yannismarou 18:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about...

Macedonia, Macedonia, Macedonia, Macedonia and of course Macedonia? Should we add those in the project of the project? There are others too, like History of Macedonia, Macedonian Question, Demographic history of Macedonia, Greek Struggle for Macedonia etc etc. •NikoSilver• 20:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Shit! I'm always doing typos. Nico, of course, they are within the scope of the scope ... ehhh ... the project of the project ... Whatever! So we can add the project banner and watch them.--Yannismarou 20:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha! I thought so too! SilverSilver 21:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ecumenical Patriarch

Firstly i have to say that i am not much familiar on how a wiki project works (since i have not participated in another prior to this one), so, i am not sure if my proposal fits in the scope of this project. I noticed in the 'Announcements and Open tasks' that there are requests for expansion of figures, historical or still active. I am thinking to add Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople there. Though the article about the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople are developed with lots of info, the article about the current Patriarch is rather poor. I think that he deserves a better article. Hectorian 00:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This article definitely needs our attention, in view of the upcoming meeting of the Patriarch with the Pope. •NikoSilver• 11:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. You can add this article there. I hope it will attract attention.--Yannismarou 15:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV disputes

Where was that sub-page/task-force for that? There seems to be an ongoing dispute in Alexander the Great regarding his categorization in homosexuality. The dispute is under mediation. That, I find a relief among all those ethnic debates! Another article needing attention is Homosexuality in ancient Greece, which I saw mentioned in G.Alex's talk, and seems quite active in editing. •NikoSilver• 11:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

We obviously don't have such a task force. But you can initiate one! I've followed this discussion and I had expressed my opposition to this categorization. My opposition was based on the fact that "paidikos eros" and "homosexuality" are not exactly the same thing.--Yannismarou 15:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greek Mythology endangered in FARC

I don't know if this article can be regarded as being within the scope of the project, but I thing this notification is worthy: Greek Mythology is up for review in Wikipedia:Featured article review/Greek mythology. I urge any Wikipedian, member or not of this project, who has the ability and the willingness to try to improve this article.--Yannismarou 11:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board

I received a notification informing me about the creation of the Wikipedia:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board, and kindly asking me to participate. I want to know your opinion about this initiative: what you think about it; if there are ways this project to participate in this initiative etc.--Yannismarou 21:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I got a similar message. The idea of a cooperation board between Greek and Turkish wikipedians is a indeed good idea (although a similar attempt in the past failed...). However, i am waiting till i hear something more, apart from ευγενείς προθέσεις. if this cooperation board is gonna end like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek and Turkish named places) (where greek users explained their thesis massively, non-Greek, non-Turkish users also explained their position, but Turkish users-apart from only one-did not even show up-though they were kindly requested to do so), then, i see no reason why to spend precious time... In addition, i would like to see some lines drawn, as a method of reaching compromises and solutions-not just declaring that we want to cooperate. A further comment by me will be in Wikipedia talk:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board. Hectorian 21:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bring up the issue here, that notification should have been posted here as well. I hope that the board will be of use, I will try to get more users involved constantly. I was thinking that the best way to approach this would be to determine small tasks that can be addressed (e.g. intro of TRNC issue), and work by small steps. A further comment by me also in Wikipedia talk:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board :)) Baristarim 01:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What is the point of this? Why not a Wikipedia:Greek and Serbian wikipedians cooperation board (lol)? There is already an article called Greek-Serbian Friendship (which, BTW, needs attention because it's full of POV) Mitsos 17:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not! Would you like to initiate it?--Yannismarou 14:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A very good reason for not creating Wikipedia:Greek and Serbian wikipedians cooperation board would be in my opinion the very low level of exchange between Greek and Serb editors. With very few and partial exceptions, it is very rare to see Serbs and Greeks sharing interest for editing the same topics.--Aldux 14:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out one thing here: Despite our differences, the Greek and Turkish Wikipedians have managed to avoid fierce tensions, and to collaborate in a generally civil manner. Having in mind some other conflicts in Wikipedia between users of different nationalities, I would like to stress that this is an achievement! At least, we speak to each other, and we can collaborate in some articles. And believe me, this is very important. The cooperation board will hopefully further strengthen this collaboration, and will (hopefully again) constitute a place where crises could be discussed and tensions could be diffused. Speaking to each other even for minor issues is very important. We build and develop a good atmosphere, promoting a common understanding. I don't say that we'll resolve all the problems of the two nations here (we won't! I know!), but I'm happy that I see from the Turkish editors the willingness to know us better, to collaborate with us, and to create together certain articles. I must admit that, when I first saw the board, I also had my reservations, but in the meantime I realized that the intentions of the Turkish editors are sincere, and that they really want to do something good here. For all these reasons I do believe that this board has a point: it might make us re-evaluate our bias and POVs. In this direction one of the best initiatives during these first weeks the board is working was Nicos' Nationality quiz. Now, it is mainly inactive, but you should take a look at it. It will make you think. And remember: thinking is an exercise most people in the world dislike. That is why Nicos' quiz was a shrewd and useful initiative.--Yannismarou 15:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Re paidia, I was kidding... Mitsos 13:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha! So successfully that you convinced use you weren't! Cheers!--Yannismarou 21:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complex Draco move

I have made a complex request to move Draco (on the ancient Athenian) to Draco (lawgiver) and Draco (disambiguation) to Draco. This is based on the premise that a search for "Draco" is equally likely (if not more likely) to be looking for something other than the ancient Athenian. A Google search on "Draco" supports this assumption. If you agree or disagree, please comment on the talk pages for these articles. Dr. Submillimeter 07:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The requested move has been approved and completed. All links have been disambiguated. —Doug Bell ^talk 11:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alopekis dog

I have some suspicions about this supposed breed of dog from Greece. The article claims that it originated in ancient Greece, with the Pelasgians, so I'm bringing it here. Is it commonly depicted in ancient Greek art, as the article claims? There are 10,000+ Google hits for 'Alopekis' but the vast majority of them refer to a street with that name. The plural used in the article, 'Alopekii', has virtually no hits. Any light you could shed on the matter would be most welcome.--Nydas^(Talk) 09:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Which article? I just see a red link.--Yannismarou 19:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for article "Greek famine of 1941-42"

I was browsing around some WWII Greece related articles and stumbled upon the Template:World_War_II. I was surprised to see that, even though the Dutch famine of 1944 is there under the "Civilian impact and atrocities section" the Greek famine is not. The Dutch famine was a very tragic event indeed with some 10,000 civilian casualties but on the other hand it "dwarfs" comparing to the casualties (70,000 to 300,000 people!) of the famine in the winter of 1941. I did found some references on it though, in articles as Axis occupation of Greece during World War II and SS Kurtuluş but I think it deserves its own article and a place within this template. Taxidiwths 09:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree and I will add this missing article in the relevant template of the main page. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to initiate this article myself during this month.--Yannismarou 19:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pontic genocide

Please could people leave their comments at Talk:Pontic Greek Genocide in order to achieve and improve consensus.--Yannismarou 16:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece

Yesterday, I noticed the existence of this project (created a month ago). I was surprised, because I did not know that. The project, though recent, looks to me inactive. In any case, I think that we should seriously discuss here about the future of this project and of ours. What shall we do with the overlaps (if the above project is active, I repeat)? How shall we co-operate? Should they be any thoughts for merger?--Yannismarou 13:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Check also WP:GR... NikoSilver 16:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the board is not necessarily a problem (altough is is also mainly inactive). I'll post here what I wrote in your talk page: "For me, the only plausible solution is merger. The problem is how is this merger is going to be implemented. WP:GREECE probably has the most appropriate title and a broader scope, but WP:HOG has a much better backround, organization and structure, and it is an active project (whereas WP:GREECE is actually inactive since it was created). We must see how we'll combine these things. And I'll expect a response from the other two members of WP:GREECE."--Yannismarou 16:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge WP:HOG into WP:GREECE. I agree. NikoSilver 16:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What I think now is a series of issues:

• What is going to happen with the members. I think they should all be notified, and asked if they want to participate in a project with a different scope (not strictly history orientated and less specialized).
• What is going to happen with the templates, userboxes etc.
• What is going to happen with the archives.

These are just some examples. I know of course that all these things can be settled, but it will take time. I hope more members will express themselves and from the new year we will implement a solution. After all, in 1-2 hours I'll be in a wiki-break!--Yannismarou 16:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Since there are relatively few people in both projects (especially the Greece one), I think merging them into one is a good idea. If it ever gets big enough that there are a large group of people interested specifically in the history of Greece but not necessarily modern Greece (non-Greek classicists, for example), then we could break out a sub-group. --Delirium 19:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Support merger, and have added a tag to that effect to the WikiProject Greece page. Probably favor the shorter name WikiProject Greece, because I chose it :), but willing to be reasonable. Badbilltucker 17:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What I can propose as a solution is implement the merger in the following way: 1) rename this project as Wikiproject Greece and rename accordingly all its task-forces, departments, templates etc., and 2) delete the current WP:GREECE. But, in order to implement this solution, I think that we must have here a consensus from the members (at least the most active ones) of both projects.--Yannismarou 18:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Yanni. Be bold, and let's get done with it. NikoSilver 22:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I'll implement my proposal presented above, and I'll delete some time today WP:Greece renaming the current "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Greece" as "Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece", so as to take advantage of the organization and background of WP:HOG. The members of the current WP:GREECE will be of course more than welcome in the "new" WP:GREECE. I;ll also notify personally the three members of WP:Greece.--Yannismarou 07:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, both that it should be merged, and that it should be done by moving WP:HOG, since it has much more activity, history, and members. We should keep redirects, of course, especially from the hundreds of templates that are already on articles. --Delirium 12:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the tough task! I'll try to implement the merger with the philosophy of keepig the name of WP:GREECE and the structures of WP:HOG, and I hope I don't make it a mess!--Yannismarou 13:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcoming form

I though of this form in order to welcome new members. What do you think? (section also in the project's main talk page)--Yannismarou 13:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to modify the form here: Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Greece/Outreach/Welcome.--Yannismarou 14:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Having just received one — thanks Yannismarou — I can attest that the form is well designed, and provides useful information for a newcomer to the project. So now that I'm an officially welcomed new member of the project, let my first action as member be to recommend a personal welcome, in addition to the form. The personal touch is always nice and always welcomed ;-) Paul August ☎ 16:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right.--Yannismarou 16:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

How do we generally add new articles in the scope of the project? Miskin 03:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request of Template Removal

I'm requesting for the removal of the WikiProject History of Greece template from the Turkish War of Independence article. I believe that only WikiProject Turkey should be handling it, since it has to do with Turkey. If you think that Greek history has more to do with it than necessary, then we will take our right to handle the Greek War of Independence article as well since Greece used to be Ottoman territory and the war was between Greece and the Ottoman Empire. Please consider. -- WiiVolve 05:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi WiiVolve. I think you may be operating under a misunderstanding. No project "handles" an article. There is no sense in which an editor, groups of editors, or projects have ownership of an article, please see WP:OWN. The same article may fall under the scope of more than one project. I think each project decides what its scope should be. I see no objection to any project deciding that any article is within its scope. It might seem a little silly if the mathematics project decided James Joyce was within its scope, but I think it is solely up to each project to define what it is about. Paul August ☎ 16:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There are several earlier debates for this. See Wikipedia talk:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board#WPHoG and WPTR templates and Talk:Thessaloniki#WPTR tag. NikoSilver 17:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA candidacy of a related article

Hippocrates, an article related to this project, is a current Featured article candidate. Comment on the discussion are appreciated. Circeus 19:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 21:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Military of Greece

I just wanted to let anyone who is intrested now that Portal:Military of Greece has been created so if anyone wants to help go right ahead. If anyone has any requests for an article to be put on there please contact me on my talk page and I'll try and add it. Kyriakos 03:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I made an official announcement in the main project and the project banner. Maybe you would also be interested in creating (not necessarily now!) a task force within the scope of this project: "Military History of Greece" maybe!--Yannismarou 09:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constantine Karamanlis

Is the infobox in the Constantine Karamanlis article going a bit out of control? What can we do about it? It sure has a lot of redundant information and IMO it looks unattractive. Any thoughts? Thanks. Dr.K. 07:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I checked the respective template of Jacques Chirac (he has also been president and prime minister), and it has the same structure. The problem with Karamanlis template IMO are the too many names of prime ministers before and after him (and there is also a "none" for 1974)! The fact that some of these names are red links makes the template indeed a bit "unattractive". Some of these prime ministers ("preceeded" and "succeeded") were temporarily in the post and they were not elected. I don't know if they (or the "none" for 1974 and the relevant explanation) could be taken away from the box. Does this serve encyclopedic accuracy? I'm not sure if this info is redundant. Maybe we could start with un-redlinking and making stubs for these prime ministers. Now, in some cases abbreviations could be used so as to make the template a biiiit shorter. E.g., instead of "National Radical Union (later New Democracy)" -"NRU (later ND). In any case, because of the many posts Karamanlis held, as we can see from Chirac's infobox, it is maybe inevitable the infobox to be long.--Yannismarou 09:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Something else about the article. In "First and Second Presidency" there is nothing mentioned concerning the political turbulence of 1985 about Karamanlis second candidacy for the Presidency that was not supported by PASOK, and the subsequent resignation of Karamanlis.--Yannismarou 10:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. But in the Karamanlis article the presidential infobox carries in some places the same information as the succession infoboxes at the bottom of the page. I think we should remove this info from the presidential infobox and leave it only at the succession infoboxes at the bottom of the article. The presidential infobox also carries information about birth place, date etc. that are clearly visible in the lead of the article. Where is this duplication going to stop? Also we should establish rules as to how big an infobox should be. As it stands right now it just runs down the article without apparent limits, choking and cluttering its visual development. I don't think that was its intended function. Please let me know. As far as the Presidency's turbulent times I think that's a valid concern but I am not clear on the subject. If you have information more readily available I think you should include it. Take care for now. Tasos. (Dr.K. 15:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC))

I agree that the succession infoboxes at the end of the article as they are now result in a duplication. I think their main purpose is to include all the Political offices of the descibed person as it happens in FA Tony Blair. As they are now, they could be trimmed without losing any additional infos. Now, as far as the lead and the infobox are concerned, I agree that there is a duplication. However, it seems that this dublication has become a trend in Wikipedia. See for instance the above FA of Tony Blair, which also duplicates infos of the lead. See also an article of mine and its infobox, El Greco: it is about an artist, but the infobox results in he same duplications. It seems that infoboxes are regarded as working in parallel to the main text of the article, and some dublications are not regardes as serious problems. Again, this is my personal impression. I'll give the whole issue a more detailed research, and maybe some other users are better informed than me. So, wait for more opinions here or in the Karamanlis talk page.--Yannismarou 16:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we need to develop some guidelines. Dr.K. 16:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

And for starters the succession info must be removed from the presidential infobox and only remain at the succession infobox at the end of the article, where it belongs. Dr.K. 16:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I have no objection to proceed with this solution. The most important thing is to agree on that with the other contributors of the article (if there are any). Now, about 1985, I will have a look to the archives of Karamanlis. Unfortunately, they are in another house right now, and I do not have access for the time being! But I'll check on what the relevant volume says.--Yannismarou 17:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree for removal. I also note that it is inconsistent with the boxes below, because it hides under the carpet the preceding Junta primer Adamantios Androutsopoulos (along with the relevant note, not to confuse vourtses with p...) NikoSilver 17:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Yannis and Niko. I think that the information removal from one infobox is ok as long as the information remains in the other infobox. Having two infoboxes with the same info seems a little overwrought. I also agree with Niko that some of the info may be getting shortchanged in the limiting confines of the presidential infobox. Let's keep succession information at the infoboxes at the end of the article. Take care for now. Dr.K. 01:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job Niko on the infobox. Still big for my taste but a real improvement over the old one. Dr.K. 16:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KKE Interior

I've been meaning to start an article (incorporating stuff from the Greek wikipedia article) about the historical KKE Interior (ΚΚΕ Εσωτερικού). The thing that has prevented me from doing so is an ambiguity of how to name the article. I don't quite know how to translate the name. Literal translation would be like Communist Party of Greece of the interior, but that's inherently ugly and ambiguous (much like the greek name of the party...). The history section of the KKE website names it Communist Party of the Interior (along with the usual KKEdish slurs :) ) but this naming excludes the "of Greece" part of the name. Any ideas from more imaginative people than me? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I left a message to User:Damac politely asking him to comment here. He is a native-English speaker, he has written many articles on Greek politics, and he is also a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Greece/Politics and politicians task force. Before expressing my own opinion, I would like to think a bit about it, because it is indeed a complicated issue, and my imagination is not that vivid!--Yannismarou 13:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe KKE (Non aligned)? Dr.K. 15:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Also KKE (Domestic). Dr.K. 15:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be called by the nearest translation of its name which makes sense in English, which is probably Communist Party of Greece (Interior). Adam 15:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the title of the mainstream KKE is not KKE (there is just a redirect), but Communist Party of Greece, Adam's proposal seems quite logical. I don't think we can avoid "Communist Party of Greece" part of the title.--Yannismarou 15:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The first part of the name yes, but we are talking about the Interior qualifier inside the brackets. It doesn't have to be an exact translation of Εσωτερικού. According to the Greek Wikipedia article, the reason for the Εσωτερικού qualifier in the name is that the leadership was inside Greece. Inside Greece can be translated as Home section, Domestic, Native, etc. Interior sounds a bit too ominous. Dr.K. 16:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Dr.K, you were thinking of the Orwellian Inner Party, weren't you? I like Adam's proposal, it is elegant. But having in mind WP's conventions, it would be the title of an article about something that is called "CPoG" but must be disambiguated from other things also called "CPoG". If I'm wrong on this, I'd go for Adam's proposal. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Michalis not exactly. But you're right; Interior does sound ominously Orwellian! As far as disambiguation I guess we have to live with the side effects. If you are happy with Adam's proposal go ahead. Nice talking to you after some time. Happy New Year! Dr.K. 17:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice talking to you, too! :-) --Michalis Famelis (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether it's orwellian or not, that's the name they chose to use, and that's what we have to use too. Yes, Dr K, it does have to be an exact translation of esoterikou - we are not at liberty to make up new names which we think sound more euphonious. Adam 19:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's also worth pointing out that most English-language histories, Clogg's being an example, refer to the party as Communist Party of Greece (Interior).--Damac 20:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree at all. Michalis, justifiably had a problem with the literal form: Communist Party of Greece of the interior. Adam suggested: Communist Party of Greece (Interior), that looks decidedly more elegant. What is the difference? The brackets. I suggested: KKE (Non aligned). At least I got the form right! I may have missed on the euphonics department but that's why we had such a great discussion. Thanks to all. Dr.K. 01:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] categorization of Roman-era Greeks

Roman-era Greeks—i.e. the inhabitants of Roman Greece and ethnic Greeks who lived in Rome—are currently mostly categorized under Category:Ancient Greeks. That's fine for now, but it seems to me that it'd be useful to have a separate category for them, which would be a sub-category of both that one and of a Roman-people category, maybe Category:Ancient Romans from outside Rome. I'm open to suggestions on the name, but I'd propose something like either Category:Roman Greeks or Category:Roman-era Greeks. While we're at it, it might also be useful to separate out Hellenistic Greeks from Classical Greeks (we've already separated out Hellenistic Egyptians). --Delirium 09:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to the creation of both these sub-categories. As a matter of fact, I believe that sub-categories make easier our job here. Category:Roman-era Greeks may be a bit more accurate title, but again I could also go with Category:Roman Greeks. Just a question: "Roman-era Greeks—i.e. the inhabitants of Roman Greece and ethnic Greeks who lived in Rome" are all going to be included in the same sub-category?--Yannismarou 10:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Roman-era Greeks sounds reasonable to me. I was planning to include basically all Greeks of the Roman Republic and Roman Empire in the category, regardless of whether they lived in Greece or in the city of Rome or Egypt or wherever else. I suppose when precisely the "Roman era" starts depends on where they lived so might be a judgment call: Greece proper only became full dominated by Rome c. 146 BC after the Battle of Corinth, while Hellenistic Egypt not until 80 BC, while on the other hand 3rd-century BC Greeks in other regions were already clearly Roman (e.g. Livius Andronicus). --Delirium 11:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Democracy (Greece)

This article needs a lot of work. This is the first party in Greece but the article is very small! Mitsos 20:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Both this article and PASOK need work. I'm afraid I do not have the time to undertake the rewriting of this article personally now. But if you decide to go for it and initiate improvements, I'll be willing to offer my help in case it is needed.--Yannismarou 09:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some suggestions

Seeing as this probject is growing, I'm suggesting that we have a Collaboration. I don't know how long it should run, maybe a fortnight or a month. I think if we collaborate on some articles we can improve them significantly. My other suggestion is that we add a WikiProject: History of Greece Military history taskforce. What does everybody think? Kyriakos 01:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Both your suggestions are very interesting, and to the right direction. My comments:

• I'll definitely support and participate in a History of Greece military history taskforce. It is an effort we can combine with the military portal you created.
• I also think the collaboration is a great initiative, and we can create a section here. I had also thought about it from the first moment the project was launched. But such an initiative needs participation. I think that just two persons cannot keep it alive. So, I expect more members to voice their opinion here, and to tell if they are willing to support a monthly collaboration. If more users express their willingness to participate in such an initiative, then, yes, I'll enhusiastically support it, because I do believe it is going to be extremely useful and it will contribute greatly to the improvement of many articles! A project without a monthly Collaboration is just not a complete and thorough project!--Yannismarou 19:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

On the military history topic: it's worth pointing out that there are already two groups that cover the military history of Greece:

• Classical warfare task force (up to 500 AD)
• Balkan military history task force (after 500 AD)

Given the relatively low level of activity in the area, creating a third group wouldn't really benefit things much, in my opinion.

(Not that I can—or would—stop you if you insist on creating such a group, of course; but I really would recommend working through the two existing task forces, to minimize the splitting of the already small editorial community.) Kirill Lokshin 15:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greek War of Independence up for ACID

I nominated the Greek War of Independence for acid if anyone wants to go and vote so this article can get the attention it deserves and maybe even get close to A or FA standard. Thanks. Kyriakos 04:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What is ACID? Any links? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

He means Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive. Hectorian 15:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV-fork detected

As I have pointed out in its talk page, the newly-created article Greece in the Middle Ages is a blatant POV-fork of Roman and Byzantine Greece (merge of former articles Roman Greece and Medieval Greece). For the reasons explained, it should be proposed for deletion. My personal opinion is that the creator and editor of the article is using wikipedia as medium of POV-pushing (this is also evident from his own statements and past behaviour). Miskin 13:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You give us a red link here. Was it already deleted?--Yannismarou 08:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been taken care of. It was created by a banned sock, but it's now again been replaced by a redirect. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles' quality, rating and WPHOG template

Inspired by an initiative of the Military history project, the most innovative project of Wikipedia, I initiated some changes in the parameters of {{WPHOG}}. These changes allow the reviewer who evaluates the quality of an article and rates it to check five criteria, in order to determine whether an article deserves B-Class rating or not. These criteria were initially adopted by the Milhist project after the discussion here. I think these criteria are applicable in our project as well. After these changes, I also rewrote the quality scale of our project. In the quality scale I also mentioned what seems to become a generally accepted principle in Wikipedia; that articles should not be rated above 'B', unless they are already rated as 'GA' by Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates.

After the inclusion of the new parameters, an article can be evaluated based on the above 5 criteria with just the addition of the project's template. For all the details concerning the use of the new parameters , check "Usage" in {{WPHOG}}.

If you have concerns about these changes, please voice yourself. Please, also, feel free to propose further improvements. Personally, I believe that such procedures help us thoroughly evaluate the articles of our project and evaluate their quality. But, in case there are objections, we can re-examine the above changes.--Yannismarou 17:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giorgos Siantos

Could some of you WP-HOGs please give a quick check to Giorgos Siantos and perhaps get a source or two? Page was created by a newcomer the other day, copied from phantis.com. Looks decent, but has no sources so far. Thanks! Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll source it tonight. One of the most prominent and controversial historical figures of KKE.--Yannismarou 12:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)