This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please could people leave their comments at Talk:Pontic Greek Genocide in order to achieve and improve consensus. - Francis Tyers · 12:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Greece/Archive_1
>Text je dostupný pod licencí Creative Commons Uveďte autora – Zachovejte licenci, případně za dalších podmínek. Podrobnosti naleznete na stránce Podmínky užití.

---