Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Nordic military history task force

Task force icon

I've used a map of the Nordic countries (File:Nordic countries.GIF) as an icon for the task force in {{WPMILHIST}} for the time being. It's not a particularly good image, though, so ideas for replacements would be appreciated? Maybe a longship of some sort? Or would that be too medievalist? Kirill Lokshin 21:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

How about the flag of the Kalmar Union () or the flag of the Nordic Council ()? Both entities cover all five Nordic countries (not completely true for the Kalmar Union, but almost) as well as the three autonomous territories, but neither flag is generally recognized as a "Nordic symbol" though, so I don't really know if they are better in any other way than being clearer symbols than the map. – Elisson • T • C • 23:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The flag of the Kalmar Union is no longer used to represent the Nordic countries so I think that the Nordic Council's symbol should be used. Kyriakos 23:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It might be usable, I suppose; but it would be somewhat anachronistic, given that the Council is a relatively recent creation. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not the most recognizable Nordic symbol of all ?--Berig 10:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion Berig! It would make a fine counter to the Classical TF's Trireme:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that should be the symbol as it symbolizes one of the things all these countries had in common...Vikings. Kyriakos 06:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If you like the Viking theme, there are also a few others that may be considered , , , .--Berig 09:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There are thousands of runestones, many more pleasing to the eye than this one, but I suggest the Gripsholm Runestone as it contains one of the most famous poems in memory of dead warriors:

ÞæiR foru drængila fiarri at gulli ok austarla ærni gafu, dou sunnarla a Særklandi.

They ventured as men far away for gold and in the East they fed the eagle. They died in the South in the Caliphate.

It is so popular that it is an example you learn in school, and you can even see it on T-shirts. This particular expedition was a total disaster but the tales of the survivors became a Norse saga on Iceland.--Berig 09:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a runestone or an actual picture makes for a good icon. Too hard to see what it actually depicts. The longship (as originally proposed by Lokshin) image posted above is good, but a little to wide compared to the height, IMHO. I've created a slightly shortened version () that is better suited as an icon. How about that? – Elisson • T • C • 15:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I support your suggestion. Well done to have shortened it. It also looks more historical when it is shorter, IMHO.--Berig 15:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that looks good. I've changed the banner to use . Kirill Lokshin 16:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WWII operations

There's a list here that includes a separate sub-list of Scandinavian operations, if it interests anyone. There's lots of redlinks, if anyone wishes to accelerate their resolution. Folks at 137 21:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Scope

Does this task force also include the Viking era? I assume it does :). My question stems from the narrow wording of the scope. I had a look at the article Battle of Clontarf as an example. It includes participants from Orkney when it was Norwegian. But some might object on the grounds that Orkney is British now. I vote for including such articles involving areas that were Nordic and people from those areas. In my mind that goes without saying, but maybe it should be mentioned in the scope? Inge 12:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's one of the dangers of letting someone with little knowledge of this area write your scope statement. ;-)

(Please feel free to reword it as needed. The intent was certainly to include all of Viking history here.) Kirill Lokshin 14:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Then does the scope include these articles?

• Caspian expeditions of the Rus
• Paphlagonian expedition of the Rus
• Rus'-Byzantine War (860)
• Rus'-Byzantine War (907)
• Rus'-Byzantine War (941)

Note that the second and third articles are listed as "Category:Wars involving Kievan Rus", althouh Kievan Rus' did not yet exist.--Berig 10:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

They could if we decide to. I think it would be good if we include all such related topics. Then again, the further we go from the core topic we might encounter objections from people insisting that they are unrelated. And the next question might be do we include the Normans? The early Norman topics might be uncontroversial, but when the Normans invade Britain and other places things get hairy.Inge 10:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If these are not within the scope of this task force, we could just as well drop the Viking part. The only reason to exclude them would be to avoid offending a minority of users.--Berig 11:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)