Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 20

Image:BarnstarMil4.jpg

I realize no one's asked me for my two cents, but I just wanted to say that I much preferred the chevrons. Seems a bit more generic (not quite as 20th century oriented as something involving camo or tanks), and simpler. LordAmeth 12:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the Lord. I in particular do not like the camo. :-) Andreas 12:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there a particular chevron idea you prefer? (There are a couple different ones up there that involve chevrons, so I'm not quite sure which one you're referring to.) —Kirill Lokshin 14:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

My favourite is the first one with the small star. Andreas 15:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the chevrons look generic at all, in fact, they seem like the specific insignia for US Cavalry sergeants from the late 1800s = even with the barnstar over top.Michael Dorosh 15:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I also like the first one best. Shiney, classy and vaguely historical. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

These are ALL very good; specially the ones with the chevrons and the cammo. Can't we keep them all and use them as a sort of ranking system for awards or just let members award small-novelty awards to eachother for helping one-another? If any one template HAS to be chosen, though, I like the Image:WikiChevrons.png best of all. --Killioughtta ^T/_C 17:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

one more idea - what about a "Barn Star with Oak leaf clusters? Oak leaf clusters are a reoccurring theme in military decorations (medal of honour, knight's cross come to mind)... just thought I'd throw that out there. maybe someone could whip something up?Mike McGregor (Can) 07:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll see what I can do. —Kirill Lokshin 17:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's one draft of that. (May not be quite what you had in mind, though.) —Kirill Lokshin 18:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've got a few ideas for you Photoshop geniuses. Try these:

• Modern warfare: a barnstar on a ribbon so it looks like a medal that personnel would pin on a uniform (no implications of rank or nationality in that type of design).
• Premodern warfare: a barnstar with a lance on a charging horse.
• Ancient warfare: a barnstar holding the reins to a chariot.

If no one has time to make any of those I'll pick the textured barnstar on the gray background, but I really want to punch some bullet holes into it. Durova 07:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

All nice ideas, but unfortunately we don't seem to have any Photoshop geniuses in attendance here ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 17:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

To sum up...

We have a number of options here:

A. The basic chevrons + barnstar design

B. A barnstar overlaid over the chevrons or

C. A tank armor barnstar or or or

D. A camo barnstar or Image:BarnstarMil4.jpg or or

E. Multiple awards; use multiple images with some meaning behind each (i.e. major/minor awards or something?)

F. Find another image (possibilities would be co-opting some sort of historical award)

G. No official project award at all

Which option(s) do people prefer? (Perhaps we should just have a straw poll here?) —Kirill Lokshin 00:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I personally like the top one, but the tank-like barnstars could be given to people who delve into tank warfare & the such... Spawn Man 04:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

While not conventional, the first one is the best looking IMO. Oberiko 14:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

A for me, too. --Loopy ^e 18:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

A or B - Vedexent 20:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

A also.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, consensus seems to favor option A at this point. Since I'm the one that created that particular design, I don't feel entirely comfortable making this particular call, though ;-) So, would anyone have strong objections to using the first design? —Kirill Lokshin 21:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Go with A. It's my choice as well and seem to be (by far) the most popular. Oberiko 23:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

A is fine with me. I'd say either A or F using Image:Barnstar-Oak-Leaf.png. Staxringold 01:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Option A it is, then! I've added a note about the award to the project page. To avoid any unneeded bureacracy, I've noted that it can be awarded by anyone (like a barnstar); we might want to consider doing project-wide awarding of it as well, but that may be too much red tape. —Kirill Lokshin 03:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

New task force

I've started the Middle Ages task force. Accepting new members. Welcoming template designs. Durova 01:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've created some stuff for it. —Kirill Lokshin 01:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

We have a template and we have open tasks. Welcoming new editors. Durova 17:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good articles

I've created a new subsection to Wikipedia's good article index: Wikipedia:Good articles#Military history. I'm sure more than 7 articles are good enough to deserve listing. Let's identify and honor more good work. Durova 17:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Anything tagged as A-Class on the worklist can probably be added there. Conversely, anything there that's not on the worklist yet should probably be added to it. —Kirill Lokshin 17:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oops. There's already another place for them: Wikipedia:Good articles#War. I think the two should probably be combined. —Kirill Lokshin 17:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

All military history is not "war" so yes, combine. Incidentally, I'd be interested in opinions on the article I've largely created - Calgary Highlanders. I think it is at least as well detailed as any other unit site - any chance of getting a nomination from someone? Michael Dorosh 18:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That article is very impressive. It could use a bit of formatting & aesthetic cleanup (and probably copy-editing; haven't read it all). Some sections can be removed or combined to make the length more manageable. Otherwise, it's looking good. Albrecht 16:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

2nd Canadian Infantry Division is also one of mine...should we be adding our own articles to the list? Seems like the easiest way to do it given the diversity of our interests. Actually, it says not to self-nominate - maybe we can post our own pages here in this talk section, to bring them to the attention of others in the military TFs who can then decide to post to Good articles? Seems like a fair way to draw attention to our collective work.Michael Dorosh 18:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Which list? If you mean the project worklist, sure. If you mean the good articles list, I think they have some sort of red-tape process for self-nominations; you may want to poke around and see if you can find the instructions somewhere on that page. —Kirill Lokshin 18:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This entire section is a discussion of getting military articles nominated to the good articles list, is it not??? As indicated, I've already read the self-nominations bit. I think we can circumvent the red tape and promote each other's work more effectively by posting links to what we feel represents a good article here on this Talk page, to both a) get feedback from others with military history knowledge and interest and b) be able to get articles listed in the Good Articles list without resorting to self nomination. Yes/No? I am sure many of you have written articles you consider above average and are frustrated that the topic is so arcane no one will be likely to single it out for good article status, whereas less arcane subjects with pages of dubious quality get mentioned simply because of the traffic going to them. I think we are thus in a position to assist each other, if we can get past an an individual focus and look more to co-operation. Now...who else has created articles they feel worthy of good article status? Let's see a list.Michael Dorosh 19:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, sorry about that; I was a little confused by the thread nesting ;-) This page might work as a place to ask for feedback for the time being; the various task force talk pages would also be good, for those topics that have associated task forces. —Kirill Lokshin 19:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Potentially Useful Infobox

I found this infobox over on the Alabama Page, and it seems to solve a problem I've noticed in our articles: It can show two graphics, side by side, on the same line. Military units tend to have at least one, and often two or more graphic items in their heraldic items, most commonly the Coat of Arms, the Distinctive unit insignia, and the Shoulder Sleeve Insignia. I also see this as a solution to the information organization issue. Look at this and see if it is useful.

State of Alabama
Flag of Alabama Seal Nickname(s): Camellia State, The Heart of Dixie¹, Yellowhammer State
Official language(s)	English
Spoken language(s)	English 96.7%, Spanish 2.2%
Capital	Montgomery
Largest city	Birmingham
Area	Ranked 30th in the US
- Total	{{{TotalAreaUS}}} sq mi (52,423 mi²/135,775 km²)
- Width	{{{WidthUS}}} miles (190 mi/306 km)
- Length	{{{LengthUS}}} miles (330 mi/531 km)
- % water	3.19
- Latitude	30°13'N to 35°N
- Longitude	84°51'W to 88°28'W
Population	Ranked 23rd in the US
- Total	4,447,100
- Density	{{{2000DensityUS}}}/sq mi  33.84/km² (26th in the US)
Elevation
- Highest point	{{{HighestPoint}}} {{{HighestElevUS}}} ft  (Mount Cheaha 2,408 ft/734 m)
- Mean	{{{MeanElevUS}}} ft  (499 ft/152 m)
- Lowest point	{{{LowestElevUS}}} ft  (0 ft/0 m)
Admission to Union	December 14, 1819 (22nd)
Governor	Bob Riley (R)
Lieutenant Governor	{{{Lieutenant Governor}}}
U.S. Senators	Richard Shelby (R) Jeff Sessions (R)
Congressional Delegation	List
Time zone	Central: UTC-6/DST-5
Abbreviations	AL US-AL
Website	www.alabama.gov

{{US state | Name = Alabama | Fullname = State of Alabama | Flag = Flag of Alabama.svg | Flaglink = [[Flag of Alabama]] | Seal = Alabama state seal.png| Map = Map_of_USA_highlighting_Alabama.png | Nickname = Camellia State, The Heart of Dixie[[#Notes|¹]], Yellowhammer State| Capital = [[Montgomery, Alabama|Montgomery]] | OfficialLang = [[English language|English]] | Languages = [[English language|English]] 96.7%, [[Spanish language|Spanish]] 2.2% | LargestCity = [[Birmingham, Alabama|Birmingham]] | Governor = [[Bob Riley (Alabama)|Bob Riley]] (R)| Senators = [[Richard Shelby]] (R) [[Jeff Sessions]] (R) | PostalAbbreviation = AL | AreaRank = 30<sup>th</sup> | TotalArea = 52,423 mi²/135,775 | LandArea = 50,750 mi²/131,442 | WaterArea = 1,673 mi²/4,333 | PCWater = 3.19 | PopRank = 23<sup>rd</sup> | 2000Pop = 4,447,100 | DensityRank = 26<sup>th</sup> | 2000Density = 33.84 | AdmittanceOrder = 22<sup>nd</sup> | AdmittanceDate = [[December 14]], [[1819]] | TimeZone = [[Central Standard Time Zone|Central]]: [[Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]]-6/[[Daylight saving time|DST]]-5 | Latitude = 30°13'N to 35°N | Longitude = 84°51'W to 88°28'W | Width = 190 mi/306 | Length = 330 mi/531 | HighestElev = [[Mount Cheaha]] 2,408 ft/734 | MeanElev = 499 ft/152 | LowestElev = 0 ft/0 | ISOCode = US-AL | Website = www.alabama.gov }} SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 19:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the regular infoboxes can handle two images already (just list both in the "image=" field. Getting the captions positioned correctly is somewhat harder, but can still be done; alternately, a single caption may be used for both images. —Kirill Lokshin 20:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Type of image is important - Cap Badges are present for Commonwealth regiments/branches/corps. Listing shoulder patches would be impossible, especially for multi-battalion units. For US forces, divisional SSI would be appropriate. As for German units, they didn't wear either, so I guess we won't have any commonalities across nationalities.Michael Dorosh 23:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Wars Task force(s)?

Would there be any interest in (a) task force(s) devoted to ancient (600 AD and eariler) conflicts task force? I can see this breaking up, eventually, into more specialized units, but for now maybe one would suffice? As someone who is interested in the history of Ancient Rome, I'm starting to see holes in the coverage of even some of the more famous coflicts, such as Caesar's civil war - Vedexent 02:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm somewhat hesitant to start such a broad task force, particularly given that we do have a fair number of people working on Roman topics. Perhaps a dedicated Roman task force would be better? —Kirill Lokshin 02:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Either way works for me. My primary interest is Rome, I just didn't want to be civilization-centric ;) - Vedexent 03:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Civilization-centric is fine ;-) It matches the other "Fooish military history" task forces, in any case. —Kirill Lokshin 03:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

One other question: do we want a "Roman military history" task force (thus potentially including Byzantium?) or an "Ancient Rome" or "Roman Era" task force (which would potentially include contemporary powers, e.g. Carthage, Pontus, Parthia, etc.)? —Kirill Lokshin 03:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Including Byzantium could really expand the scope of the task for a lot. I was thinking "Classical Rome" - c.753 BC - c. 476 AD. - Vedexent 03:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; here you go, then. Feel free to rephrase the scope to your liking. —Kirill Lokshin 04:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion-Expand the breadth and make it "Classical Warfare" or "Classical Antiquity" Taskforce, to cover the period from the Persian wars to the fall of Rome. Greek and Roman military histories are very closely linked. It is difficult, if not impossible in some cases, not to discuss one when dealing with the other. You will also get a lot more interested members and won't have to change the TF's logo, since the Trireme is Greek invention and hence much more closely associated with them than the "bloody" Romans:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 17:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"Classical Antiquity"? Isn't that a bit redundant? I have no problems with expanding the task force to cover both the Greeks and the Romans—along with everyone else who got caught up in the wars—but the lack of a good name is the main stumbling block ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 17:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

How about Task Force Belisarius? Palm_Dogg 18:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Much as I like that, I must go with Classical Warfare. Beli's brillance falls a bit after the peroid in question:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I like "Classical Warfare", Mediterranean basin and surrounding territory, c.500 BC to c.500 AD. As Ghost In The Machine points out it is all pretty much interconnected anyways. Are there any strong objections? Can we change the group name? - Vedexent 18:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"Classical warfare" it is, then. —Kirill Lokshin 18:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) I changed the scope message to specifically mention the classical antiquity period as well - Vedexent 18:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Exxxxcelent! Count me in. Sapere aude!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Featured in other languages

This should probably get reposted somewhere else on the project, but I'm not sure where. I've surveyed all the articles on the worklist and noted which ones are featured in some other language but not in English. It should be a good reference for our multilingual editors. Durova 04:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Arabic: 2003 Invasion of Iraq, Battle of Hattin
• Dutch: Battle of Verdun
• Esperanto: Hundred Years' War, Battle of Waterloo
• Finnish: Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar
• French: Greco-Persian Wars, Thirty Years' War, Napoleon I of France
• German: Peloponnesian War, Sicilian Expedition, Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, Battle of Trafalgar, Battle of Verdun, Katana
• Hebrew: Cavalry, Infantry, Naval warfare, Wars of the Roses, American Civil War, World War II, Winter War, 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Battle of Agincourt, Battle of Verdun, Julius Caesar, Napoleon I of France, Richard I of England
• Icelandic: Thirty Years' War, Iran-Iraq War
• Italian: Napoleon I of France
• Japanese: World War II, Katana
• Norwegian: Amphibious warfare, Urban warfare, Wars of the Roses, Iran-Iraq War, Battle of Cannae, Alexander the Great, Napoleon I of France
• Polish: Battle of Midway, George S. Patton
• Portugese: Reconquista, American Civil War, Fall of Constantinople, Erwin Rommel
• Slovak: Alexander the Great
• Slovenian: Battle of Marathon
• Spanish: Napoleonic Wars, Falklands War, Battle of Adrianople, Napoleon I of France
• Swedish: Wars of the Roses, Thirty Years' War, World War II
• Thai: Napoleon I of France
• Vietnamese: World War II, Vietnam War

Very interesting. Unfortunately, I suspect that some languages—the smaller ones in particular—have rather looser standards for featured articles than the English Wikipedia, which means their articles may not be of much help. —Kirill Lokshin 04:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Depending on what our article looks like, we may need all the help we can get. Durova 05:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a Translation Task force is in order here too? With emphasis, at least at first, on the larger, better known languages.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What areas need the most work now?

Some areas of military history are generally well-documented but some areas are simply atrociously lacking in substance. What do fellow contributors think is a general area that needs the most work now, maybe we can set up a task force to remedy with this. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 06:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The Mongolian Empire has been overlooked. I was adding Middle Ages task force tags yesterday and couldn't find an article that even had the project tag. Their military history hasn't been categorized and there seems to be a lot of missing articles: a sad state of affairs for the largest land empire of all time. Durova 08:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat more broadly: anything that falls into systemic-bias-land (southern & central Asia, South America, China!, etc.) is going to be in pretty bad shape, as is much of the medieval and early modern periods. The most effective way of dealing with it would probably be to set up a "Countering Systemic Bias" task force that would act to find and add such articles to the worklist (as well as working on them, obviously). On the other hand, I'm not sure how many people within the project would be interested in such a thing, and I'm loathe to simply invite WP:CSB here, as they tend to run roughshod over things sometimes. —Kirill Lokshin 13:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

How much help would a milhist-specific CSB taskforce be? I could probably get something like this going if there's enough people willing to do this, since it's what I do pretty much. :D -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 15:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm gunshy. As much as I like the principle, it tends to attract quarrelsome people whose viewpoint is stronger than their scholarship. My solution at the Middle Ages task force was to welcome non-Western topics in the opening statement. I'd rather see a project most wanted list where Irish military history, Ethiopian military history, or anything else gets equal standing. Durova 17:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In theory, the worklist and wanted articles list are open to all areas of military history. In practice, of course, people tend to add things from the areas they work on, so we're unlikely to get, say, Ethiopian military history unless (a) someone working on those articles joins the project or (b) we get people to add articles from areas outside their own work. Which of the two is less likely is open for debate ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 17:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

We've gotten over 100 new project members in under 6 months. Who knows what we'll see next? I'm seeking out articles to tag so potential contributors know we exist. If I get the time I'll start some new categories so those subjects become easier to navigate. I may not be qualified to write about some of these subjects, but I can lay the groundwork for other editors. Durova 21:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I know this is not exactly what Kirill meant by areas, but MAPS. We need mo' better maps! Apart from translators to assist our cross-wiki pollenation efforts, we need cartographers or even just collectors and curators to create and maintain a map library for the project. Simply having all relevent maps we can find in one central location would be a tremendous help.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd second that - a better "public domain" map collection would be immensely helpful. - Vedexent 22:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we identify a good source, though, that will maintain consistency? I enjoy doing my own maps and have uploaded to wikipedia in the past, but they aren't consistent with the more "professional" ones also found on wikipedia. I would certainly be interested in working on some, especially First and Second World War maps, if anyone wanted them in the style shown at right.	Image:Vimymap.gif
However, it seems that there are maps out there available without copyright protection (these look suspciously like the ones from the US Army green books). If there are sources of some of these older maps from official publications that have expired copyright or are available for free download, we should do something about locating and uploading them. They seem to be available online but are subject to ...well, subject. The US Army ones are related only to American battles of the Second World War, etc.Michael Dorosh 22:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be the source for the US maps, see copyright notice of the "D-Day" map above. The problem with these maps are that they are older, hence possibly inaccurate or not reflecting more recent research they come from paper references of the 1950s or so, and do not use colour as well as they might to indicate clearly different terrain, units, etc. However, a good map editor could probably rework them as needed, if needed.Michael Dorosh 22:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Both types are good. Hell, often any map is good, even if it's only a political map showing the borders at the time. We don't really have enough of a collection on Wikipedia at this point to be particularly choosy ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 22:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting idea, and certainly something that would be extremely helpful. On a side note, I don't think the "task force" model (i.e. the notice tags, the scope statements, etc.) really fits this sort of thing; and we don't really need it to scale to having multiple such collections. Maybe create a "department" of the project to deal with cartography (and perhaps a second to deal with translation)? —Kirill Lokshin 22:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh Hells YES! Cartography and Translation departments...that's what we need! Since their duties would be broader they will have to be more formally organized than task forces. And a perminent part of the project.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

A department might want to hammer out some thoughts on standardization of map symbols or somesuch if there are different people interested in creating or editing maps. Michael Dorosh 22:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Are these maps out of copyright, or copyrighted? Andreas 22:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Really, the advantage of editing online maps with new text and colours means that the editor is bypassing copyright quite nicely by producing an original work. See the text on the D-Day map above. Simply redoing it in Paint and cleaning up some of the stray pixels turns it into something original while still keeping the fidelity of the original work. My Vimy map above was from Pierre Berton's book but no one would know due to the use of colour and unique terrain symbols.Michael Dorosh 22:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually like the look of them, and most of the time they are sufficient. I am also singularly untalented. Andreas 23:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sufficient or not, we were discussing copyright. If they are copyright, they are unusable - hence insufficient to our needs. I would suggest those that do have talent might be assembled for a cartography section, as outlined above byR.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine).Michael Dorosh 23:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that simply making minor edits will help copyright-wise (c.f. derivative work), but, then again, I'm not a lawyer ;-)

As far as those maps are concerned, emailing the listed contact and asking would probably be the best course of action; they may be public domain if they're taken from old atlases. —Kirill Lokshin 23:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

USMA...we're talking Westpoint here, right? So it would fall under the domain of US GOV fair use. So let us make full and fair use of them. Though it might not hurt if we ask the Dean also. In fact we might even gain a prestigious new ally in our map quest for historical knowledge.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I totally missed the fact that this was the USMA (silly .edu domain and all that). Still, it's possible that they're reproducing commercial maps under some particular agreement, so it would be best to ask to be on the safe side. —Kirill Lokshin 23:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I just got a letter from West Point... but nah. No way I'm going there. :D -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

So it's off to write the history Dean of West Point then. How's this sound:

Dear Sir, we represent Wikipedia's Military History Project link. We have recently formed a cartography department to collect and create quality maps. In our research we have come across your fine collection of historical atlases link , and would ask for your kind permission to use them in our various articles. As one of the world's most prestigious educational institutions, it would be an honor to work with you in our common pursuit of knowledge. We also humbly invite you to make full and free use of whatever resources we may provide. Thank you for your time and consideration,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You're free to write him, of course; if nothing else, any name recognition we establish might prove useful at some point in the future. The maps themselves, however, are already free for our use, since apparently someone had the same idea ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 22:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest replacing "humbly" with a more businesslike term and promising to provide source credit for the images. Durova 23:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Cartography and translation departments

Per the various discussions above, I present, for your viewing pleasure, the cartography department (which will attempt to build a collection of maps for the project) and the translation department (which, naturally enough, will work on various translation-oriented things).

A few remarks:

• I've purposely structured these a little differently than the regular task forces, since they are both somewhat more formal and less topic-oriented in scope. In particular, the membership/recruitment side of the task forces (the notice tags, the member lists, etc.) is almost entirely absent.
• The list of languages in the translation department is rather brief; feel free to add others as needed. I'm hoping that we can get at least a few covered with volunteers from our current membership.
• I'm not quite sure yet how the list of maps should be structured within the cartography page; I suspect that this will become clearer once some initial cataloguing is done and the scale becomes more apparent.
• The introductory comments and section instructions on both pages are somewhat rough. If anyone can come up with something more coherent, please feel free to improve on them.

Any comments or suggestions are, of course, welcome! —Kirill Lokshin 02:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Done and done...and once more WELL DONE!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

*applause* Durova 23:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)