Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals/Archive 2

Article naming question for lists
In, should name of the of the article be...
 * 1) Orders and decorations of Monaco (which is the current name)
 * 2) List of orders and decorations of Monaco (add "List of" prefix)
 * 3) List of orders, decorations, and medals of Monaco (add "List of" prefix, and new, longer ODM name)
 * 4) List of Orders, Decorations, and Medals of Monaco (add "List of" prefix, and new, longer ODM name with CAPS)
 * Thx &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 20:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * We probably have to discuss this, how we should evolve a common style of presentation for each nation's ODM (templates, articles, etc). In ideal circumstances this list should be a sort of 'contents page', enabling quick and easy access to the articles which have been (ideally) written on each individual medal.  For the time being though, what about Orders, decorations, and medals of Monaco?  It keeps the corporate naming style and seems to be appropriate for an overview article.


 * X damr talk 23:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Bringing order to Orders
As members of this project are likely aware, the family of Orders of St John is confusing. There is a good deal of chaos in their organization on Wikipedia. I thought I'd bring a proposal here (originally proposed by User:Boven who now seems to be inactive). I'd like to see the articles written and organized thusly:
 * Knights Hospitaller(covering the general broad history of the order from its beginnings in the Holy Land to present)
 * Alliance of Orders of St John(a description of the structure and purpose of this group)
 * Order of Malta(the catholic order with extended history from the beginnings to present)
 * The Four Main Protestant Orders
 * Balley Brandenburg ("Johanniterorden")(Germany)
 * Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem(England)
 * Johanniterorden I Sverige(Sweden)
 * Johanniter Orde in Nederland(Netherlands)
 * The Four non-German Commanderies of the Bailiwick of Brandenburg
 * Swiss Commandery of the Order of St John(Switzerland)
 * French Commandery of the Order of St John(France)
 * Hungarian Commandery of the Order of St John(Hungary)
 * Finnish Commandery of the Order of St John(Finland)

I think that an organization this way would be helpful. We could also add a category such as or something like that to group them all together, as well as a possible template showing their relationships. What say ya'll?-- Eva  b  d  19:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In an effort to keep the discussion in one place, how about we do all the discussing here.-- Eva  b  d  19:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Scope of the WikiProject
Just was wondering if non-military awards/prizes like Oscars or Noble prize would also come under this WP? Or this WP is just for military related awards, the idea one gets from the project banner? STTW (talk)  19:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No they don't. This Project deals with national honours systems, ie awards/decorations for bravery, meritorious service, etc issued by the state to military or civilian personnel.  It doesn't really deal with prizes and private awards.


 * X damr talk 15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Medals
Are all medals created by nations worthy of a wikipedia article? Or only medals such as the VC. Crested Penguin 09:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, all national medals are notable enough to have their own article here. Of course you can say more about some medals, such as the VC, than you can about others, but ideally all should have an entry.


 * X damr talk 12:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks Crested Penguin 22:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Qualification and Service Badges
Folks, you are mis-cataloging several US Army and USAAF badges, e.g. "Auxiliary Pilot Badges", etc. Unless I'm very mistaken, this category, "Orders, Decorations, and Medals" is for awards for personal or unit behavior during service. Qualification or service badges, like pilot wings, or jump wings, or other service badges are NOT awards for behavior. They're for being qualified or assigned to certain duty-types. Therefore, these entries should be moved out of the ODM category.Maclir2001 21:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Remember, the is an internal category used to help organize and help contributing editors find articles, not one to be used as in index into WP.  You are correct, those badges are not an Order, Decoration or Medal under the military definition.  We could change the name to ODMB :) Or maybe the WP:ODM should be slightly modified to be a bit broader.  My personal 2c is that if it's on your chest or in your service record, it would fall under the WikiProject. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 01:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree—I don't see any real problem with them being dealt with here if that is what people want. The Project is the 'Orders, decorations, and medals' WikiProject but, although our main focus, this isn't necessarily all-encompassing.


 * X damr talk 08:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ribbon racks
After wandering through various articles and seeing awards and decorations sections in many layouts, I decided to be WP:BOLD. So, I am looking for feedback on Robin_Olds and Image:Robin Olds ribbons.png and its use of mw:Extension:ImageMap. Thanks. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 19:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been throwing around a few ideas myself re creating ribbon bars - Jack Lockett for example. Whilst I like the concept, is it possible to have the mass ribbon bar a bit smaller? It does tend to dominate the page (particular with the huge fruit salad of US ribbons and decorations). Whilst the 'Rackbuilder' tool is useful, it is really only for American forces - so perhaps a more generic template is needed to allow for consistency across nationalities. PalawanOz 03:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, any of the WP:IMAGE syntax can be used. I changed it to be 200px and centered it here.  Wandering through the main website, http://www.medals.lava.pl, I found similar tools for US Cadets, Canada, Italy, and the UK.  Maybe there are other websites with more comprehensive tools. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 04:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing I guess is in ensuring accuracy - particularly when it comes to the award of 'foreign awards', and in how the individual's country treats them (ie, in what order they are displayed)PalawanOz 06:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can make the ribbon bars also, so if you need a specific rack made, let me know and I can figure out how to best do it. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This is quite an interesting little thing. I echo the concerns re. accuracy—this could only really be used where we had a pretty certain and precise knowledge of the decorations and medals awarded, and of course issues of precedence/order of wear, not to mention (for Commonwealth people at least) the question of whether permission was given for particular foreign awards to be worn or not. Having said this, if we can sort these things out perhaps it might be a good thing to liaise with WP:MILHIST/WP:BIO and see how they feel about adding this to infoboxes etc?

 X damr  talk 23:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Armenia
I noticed form this ref that Kirk Kerkorian got Armenia's top state honour. Is anyone working on this area? This would seem a good starting point. If no one is addressing it, happy to have a go. Rgds, - Trident13 18:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I do have a PDF file on my computer somewhere of the top decorations in the former Soviet republics that copied the "Hero" titles. I think Armenia is covered so I will look that up. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Class vs Grade
Which is more correct: "Single class order" or "Single grade order"? I see wiki articles use both and though they mean the same I'm sure one is the correct term. JRWalko 17:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Gallantry Medals
I've noticed that this category has been applied to a number of articles, chiefly UK but also to some Aus, Can, and US pages. This isn't part of the 'official' WP:ODM scheme of categorisation (imperfectly outlined at WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals/Category Policies) and I'm not sure that it is really terribly useful.

Firstly the question arises as to what exactly is a 'Gallantry Medal'. Military or Civil or both? In my experience 'Gallantry awards' typically refer to military decorations, not civil (see for example New Zealand gallantry awards and New Zealand bravery awards). Secondly we already have Category:Civil decorations and Category:Military decorations; this category seems to add little more than a layer of duplication. Thirdly, usefulness. This category as presently constituted seems to do nothing other than lump together a substantial number of articles, regardless of nationality, whether military or civil, rank/significance of award, whether defunct or not, etc, etc. I question whether such a category is remotely useful to anyone.

Any thoughts?  X damr  talk 13:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Military and Civil are enough. I personally find them too much as it is. I created an article or stub for every currently awarded Polish medal and a good majority of them are both military and civilian awards. That creates the problem of which category they should be in. Long story short the two lists are very similar. Adding another category will only dilute the number of orders in each making the articles less visible. JRWalko 16:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If there are no objections I will sent the category to WP:CFD within the next day or so. --  X damr  talk 12:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

India General Service Medal 1895-1902
I recently created this article to fill a redlink in the siege of Malakand article, but someone might want to take a look at it as I know next to nothing about medals :) SGGH speak! 14:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Military cross decorations
A category which I have just noticed. I don't think that categorising medals by their shape is particularly useful, anyone think otherwise? We got rid of a few categories like this a while back (the names escape me, though I remember Category:Gold medals was one of them), this would appear to have been overlooked. Anyone object if I send this to CfD (along with Category:Gallantry Medals as above)?

 X damr  talk 15:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I managed to turn up the old CfD debate - Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 3. It appears that we got rid of Category:Civilian cross decorations, but failed to notice its military counterpart.


 *  X damr  talk 15:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would support a deletion of that category. I saw that User:MatthewSMaynard added this category to a few pages recently. I agree that it doesn't really serve a useful purpose.PalawanOz 13:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've finally nominated both these for deletion. I don't anticipate any difficulty. -- X damr  talk 14:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Separate Victoria Crosses
Hello i am posting here to ask for opinions on whether the people here think that the Victoria Cross data for recipients should be changed on the Victoria Cross article even though the separate Commonwealth Awards are technically separate awards. This problem has occured because of the awarding of the Victoria Cross for New Zealand to Willie Apiata of NZSAS. Any opinions would be welcome on the VC talk page. Thankyou Woodym555 19:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Next (higher) and Next (lower)
Requesting some group discussion on the correct way to handle the Next (higher) and the Next (lower) section of the Military Award Infobox. In particular, as they apply to the Australian Honours Order of Precedence(OoP). The OoP lists both current awards and legacy imperial awards - should the Infobox contain a reference only to the 'current' award, or should it accurately reflect the OoP? For example: the Star of Courage (Australia) has the Companion of the Distinguished Service Order as the next lower in the OoP, however this is a legacy award. The next current award that could be awarded to Australians is the Distinguished Service Cross (Australia). So - what should be listed as the Next (lower) in the SC Infobox - the DSO, or the DSC? PalawanOz 21:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally I've always looked at the higher and lower entries as referring to the award level rather than the Order of Precedence. I really couldn't see too much value in a higher/lower entry for Precedence, far more useful is to show which medal is awarded for more bravery or which awarded for less bravery (so to speak).  I don't know what the general feeling is about this; do we like listing by award level?  If so then the infobox wording could probably stand to be improved.


 * As far as this present question goes, I'd be inclined to omit the Imperial awards. I'd take a present-day point of view, concentrating on the medals that are being won or could be won as of now.


 *  X damr  talk 21:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've used it to indicate what medal is worn further to the right based on the official military guidelines. The national militaries probably spent ample time devising proper procedures of wearing medals so I'd go with that. I always assumed these fields apply to currently awarded medals unless the medal in question is obsolete, then it should refer to medals from its own era. JRWalko 22:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I know atleast in the US, awards that are no longer issued and/or will not have anyone wearing them on any form of duty are still listed in our OoP. (Like medals and ribbons from WWII) JDBlues 23:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I should perhaps say that I've only ever used these two fields when discussing military/civil decorations (ie bravery), not for any other sort of medal. --  X damr  talk 23:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The info box diections state "lower – optional – for awards granted by countries or other bodies that maintain an order of precedence for decorations, the next lowest award, if any. " It does not specify that it the award must be for bravery.  JDBlues 03:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed so, this is simply my preference. I don't think that there is too much benefit from entering the higher and the lower medal in the Order of Precedence - these things usually have to be looked at in the context of the wider list.  Personally I suggest that there is more value in listing the next highest and next lowest award, so that one can easily see where in the scale of bravery any particular medal comes.  My reading of the infobox directions actually seems to admit both approaches, but that is as an aside.  What we really ought to do is consider which approach we wish to use in medals-related articles and amend the infobox accordingly.


 *  X damr  talk 13:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I am more for having the next higher/lower in the actual OoP rather then just awards for bravery since it provides a better "picture" of where the award falls regardless of reason of issue. It just doesn't seem very encyclopidic not to include all awards/decorations.  This is especially true given that many Medals are for outstanding acheivement or meritorious service as well as bravery.  JDBlues 17:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Medal Description
Please comment at Talk:Victoria Cross for Australia if you have a view on a list style vs a prose style for the medal descriptions. For example - the description of the Star of Gallantry is in list style, whilst the Victoria Cross for Australia has been reverted to prose style. Thanks! PalawanOz 21:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Interest in Military History Awards Taskforce (?)
Hi, i am asking whether any members would be willing to join a Military Awards taskforce within the Military History project. I am at the moment canvassing opinion as to whether it is viable, hopefully it would encompass all recipients of military awards such as VCs or MOHs as well as the medal pages themselves from all countries. Anybody interested is welcome to register this at the MILHIST talkpage. Thanks Woodym555 18:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, that's pretty much what this Project already covers (along with civil awards of course). While there is definite MILHIST interest in this area (eg biographical articles of VC/MoH recipients, etc) would this taskforce not simply be duplicating the scope of this Project?


 *  X damr  talk 19:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Whilst i understand there will be overlap with this project when it comes to individual medals, when it comes to indiviudals no. The orders decorations and medals project is very broad in its scope with all the decorations a country can bestow; Military awards are only a small part of this. This project does not maintain any of the articles pertaining to individuals. There are over 1400 on Victoria Cross and its recipients alone, that are not covered by this project. The idea would be to maintain and improve these articles as well. I am hoping that the expertise of the MILHIST editors will come to the medal pages. It is about creating a focus for the military aspect and will not encroach on the myriad of subjects that this project deals with. Woodym555 19:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I misunderstood you - you're primarily concerned with recipient's articles? In that case some sort of joint WP:ODM/WP:MILHIST (and maybe WP:BIO?)  taskforce would be a very good thing.  I see that you have received some positive replies to this proposal on the MILHIST talk page, perhaps try an approach to the Biography Project as well, but as it is I think this has potential.  (Incidentally, the military awards aspect is a pretty substantial chunk of this Project's raison d'etre as the participant's list shows).


 *  X damr  talk 19:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Patriotic War Excellence Badges
In the Orders, Decorations, and Medals of the Soviet Union page has anyone noticed a real lack of info on the Great Patriotic War Excellence Badges section? I tried looking for a little more information on them and actually couldn't find anything. Any info added or where to find it would be greatly appreciated.

Order of Canada
Don't worry, the article is not going to lose it's FA status, but I really believe the page needs to be overhauled, due to the new types of referencing, infoboxes and other goodies and toys that came out since this was featured. Don't worry about the fair use images right now, I am dealing with those. Can yall help me to reformat it, nonetheless? There is no official start time, so just start when you have free time. Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Australian War Memorial
HI folks just thought I'd drop past and let you know that the Australian War Memorial links to articles here that are within the scope of this project. see this example Gnangarra 13:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Cross for New Zealand
An issue has come up in the FAC (which you are all invited to comment on by the way) regarding the suitablility of this article in general. Given the limited time span of this medal it would be hard for a separate article to meet the length requirements. I have suggested on User:AnonEMouses talk page that the article is moved (back) to Victoria Cross (New Zealand) and then all VCs given to New Zealanders could be discussed. The focus of the article would become New Zealanders who won the Victoria Cross and then the VC for New Zealand would be a section at the end. Any opinions would be helpful. thanks Woodym555 15:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I didn't realise that this was up for FA - must have overlooked it. It seems that you've been on quite a spree lately :)


 * So far as the article goes, I haven't yet read the arguments but my initial feeling is that this article is about the premier NZ gallantry award. The medal is the subject, not those who have won it, or won related medals (which I'm afraid is what the UK VC is now, so far as NZers are concerned).  I certainly see that the newness of the medal could cause some problems for FA nomination (though as a rule I am against length requirements for FAs) however there absolutely ought to be an article on the medal itself, dealing with the medal as a medal.


 * I'm also not too sure I see much scope for an additional article dealing exclusively with NZ recipients. Recipients should have bio articles, and their exploits ought to be mentioned in the relevant battle/war article - other that that I don't see that there is too much to be gained from having all bios together on one page.  These things really ought to be planned out.  So far as NZ goes, we could sort of get away with it given that there have been relatively few awards, but the real test of a tenability of a structure comes when we extrapolate a little.  Such a page would be out of the question for the 1300+ UK winners, so this is really an unsustainable set-up to adopt for NZ.


 *  X damr  talk 23:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * With regards to the spree- yes i have! (At current count, 2FACS, 1 FT, 1FLC and 1FP in the works, You can tell i am interested in the Armed Forces by my love of acronyms!) My sentiments echo yours. My original intention was to keep the article directly focused on the Victoria Cross for New Zealand. Where the article falls down though is the originality of the text. The discussion at User talk:AnonEMouse has been quite thorough yet without any real agreement. The main focus for contention is the fact that much of the text is in effect duplicating what the Victoria Cross article says. AnonEMouse want s the appearances section to be cut down because it is a duplicate of the Victoria Cross article. To me this seems counter productive but that is my opinion.


 * I think you have a very valid point in relation to the recipients though. I might question your estimates of 1300 though, the total of 1356 is universal covering all nationalities. I think about 900/1000 were British. That is by-the-by though, your point is still valid. It would be impossible to create articles on all the country bios. I think the best we could hopr for is comprehensive lists which is what i intend to do next. Many of the lists currently here form the VC migration project confuse nationalities and services. (Another debate for another day)


 * In summary, i think your involvement and opinions on the matter would be welcome if you have the time. Thanks. Woodym555 17:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Order of the Dutch Lion
Should this be Order if the Netherlands Lion. All sources (google) point to it being called this. i think it is Dutch Lion on Wikipedia to avoid problems with grammar. has anyone got a good source (book preferably) to back it up? Thanks Woodym555 23:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Orders Chancery of the Kingdom of the Netherlands uses "Order of the Netherlands Lion" on its English language page. That would seem somewhat authoritative. Order of the Netherlands Lion - Royal Honours Airbornelawyer 04:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Add an 'All' to List of Victoria Cross recipients by name
Should a page called 'All' be added to this page? I have posted it here as well because I am not sure how often the articles talk page is checked. I have created a possibility on User:Jhfireboy/VC - All. Jh fireboy  Talk  19:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to delete NZ Crown Copyright images
Folks,

One of the better sources for medal images has been the NZ Defence Force website - a site that lists the images under NZ Crown Copyright, a very loose and forgiving (non-free) criteria. A great deal of our medal images come from this source (as can be seen here). I am now in a re the proposal to delete Image:Vietnam_Campaign_Medal_obverse.png image.

Could I please ask that people contribute to the discussion if you feel so inclined - the loss of the ability to use NZ Crown Copyright images would be a great shame, and I feel the admin involved is taking way too hard a line here.

Thanks for your help! PalawanOz 07:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Royal Guelphic Order
I am very suspicious of the information in the article on the Royal Guelphic Order which among other things states that the current pretender to the Hanoverian throne still has the power to award this honor. It is a bit vague as to whether it was ever awarded by a King of Hanover post 1837, and a query to that effect by another editor went unanswered. I think we may have questionable info in this article.--Wehwalt 02:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources on a FAC
Hi, I am currently taking the Victoria Cross for Australia through the WP:FAC process. The FAC nomination has become bogged down due to a lack of information on the discussions that led to the award. I am hoping that someone here might have some information or a source? Thanks, and more comments would be welcome on the nomination page. Thanks again. Woodym555 18:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Order of the British Empire
I have a question about Order of the British Empire, specifically as it may be applied to Donald Tsang. Tsang was made a Knight Commander while Hong Kong was still British territory and he was still a British subject, which meant he was allowed to use the title "Sir". But he is no longer a British subject anymore, so does he still get to use "Sir"? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Referencing the London Gazette
Members of this project may find LondonGazette useful if they have need of making a reference to the London Gazette. It will help to present such references in a uniform style, and consitent use will also make it easier to maintain these references in future (we currently have the situation where a website upgrade a couple of months ago broke all older references to individual gazettes. The [www.gazettes-online.co.uk Gazette website] has also produced this Medal table with a variety of data on introduction and first award of various UK medals and decorations, often giving the Gazette where the Royal Warrant was published.  David Underdown (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Orders, decorations, and medals
Might I suggest that the many national subcategories of Category:Orders, decorations, and medals be moved into a new subcategory (e.g. Category:Orders, decorations, and medals by country) to reduce clutter and improve organisation? If so, you might want to use AWB to do it or ask an existing AWB operator. --kingboyk (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing External Links I Posted?
I'm recently getting involved in Wiki with regard to its military pages, and I thought I would be helping the project by adding links to each medal's high-quality image scans hosted at grunt's site (gruntsmilitary.com)? However, all of the work I've done thus far has been undone by Rklawton‎. Any maybe rightly so? That's why I am posting this here; please advise on whether you think that (what I believe to be) high quality medal scans are actually relevant, appropriate, and add to the content of Wiki? Obviously some people don't feel that way; as I told Rklawton, I can't grab these images from grunt's site because I'm guessing they are not in the public domain, but everyone feels fine hosting the low-res clipart images for most of the medals?? Heck, I noticed that you guys are even using (what appears to be) grunt's image of the Navy Cross on your wiki page (compare to http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/navycr.shtml)! I mean, it's ok to post images from the site but it's not ok to link to it? Please advise, thanks. Ultimately I'm just trying to provide a resource that I think is completely relevant to the articles and content in Wiki. Militarybuff 22:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The concern that User:Rklawton had was that "it's spam". I commented on his talk page, but will reproduce here: "I think it's a bit more of a fine line here between 'spam' and providing a link to a page with a lot of good information, which also offers links to buy the medals in question. To my mind, the gruntsmilitary.com site seems to offer a great resource of information with a very unobtrusive commercial side to it (in fact, it took me a little while on the site to work out what the concern was with it)." Anyone with a better handle on the spam policy care to comment?? PalawanOz 22:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We've already got good images, so we don't need to appear as a link farm for a commercial website. If we need better images, then the article's talk pages should be tagged with a photo request.  Oddly enough, they aren't.  So in short, the spam links are fulfilling a "need" that doesn't exist.  Rklawton 22:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks PalawanOz. Like I said, I'm new here and the last thing I want to do is upset anybody or break any rules. But I agree I thought the grunt's site was a great resource and definitely didn't consider it to be spam. Rklawton, I understand your point but can you really consider grunt's site to be "commercial" (as PalawanOz pointed out?) I would think of a commercial site as a link right to a storefront. It looks like grunt's site just has external links to purchase all those decorations and the primary purpose of the site is for the content, images, and information? I still believe that it's a worthy external link and it isn't spamming anyone or forcing them into a checkout cart. Am I automatically vetoed on this since I'm the "new guy"??


 * (by the way, are you seriously going to compare this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ArmyOccMedal.jpg to this http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/ima/medals/aoocup.jpg ??? "Good" images?
 * --Militarybuff 22:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My points still stand. If an article needs and image, editors can post a request for photo on its talk page.  Your claim to be the "new guy" is somewhat disingenuous given the edit histories of some of these articles include identical edits under other WP:SPA account names.  In short, you've been here before, and you've been warned off before.  Rklawton 23:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL, wow. Well, unless anyone has any other non-biased constructive comments for me, I guess I'll wish you all the best of luck on your project to provide awesome 16-color clipart photos to the world (which, for the official Wiki records, Rklawton considers "good images"). As for me "being here before", if you mean I've stopped by previous times to add links without an account then yes (in many other topics than just Military, by the way), but I never actually bothered to come back and notice that my contributions were being systematically eliminated by someone who holds a very strong personal opinion on what defines "spam" and "commercial sites". Thus, my drive to finally create an account (my first and only, by the way) here and add some clarity to this topic. Plus, I'm sure you'll agree that compared to someone of your stature and obvious time commitment to this site, I am quite "the new guy". Did the author of grunt's site do something to you in the past? I'm just completely shocked at your blind zeal for removing any and all of my external links. It's a shame that one person has complete and total say over the content of these pages, when I thought Wiki was supposed to be a community's collection of information and resources.
 * Militarybuff 00:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To you it might appear to be blind zeal. To someone with 25,000 edits (and a few thousand more in other wikis), it's experience.  Rklawton 04:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)