This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Orders, decorations, and medals Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of orders, decorations, and medals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Orders, decorations, and medalsWikipedia:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsTemplate:WikiProject Orders, decorations, and medalsOrders, decorations, and medals Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: British / European C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force

User:Xdamr, I saw you recently changed the image on display from the Image:1914 Star.png version back to the Image:1914StarObv.png version, saying that the black and white version had greater clarity of detail. Whilst I can see what you mean (and that black and white does inherently show more contrast), I believe that the colour image does show more than enough detail when viewed in isolation (ie, on it's own page), and the black and white version does tend to mislead people into thinking that the medal is actually a silver medal, rather than bronze - a discussion I had with someone regarding one of the World War 2 stars (I think it was) highlighted this misconception. I would suggest that the colour version (as sourced from the NZDF site) is a better image to use to illustrate the article. PalawanOz 05:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to take so long in replying to you. Someone thought it would be a good idea to nominate the B/W image for deletion (as orphaned) so partly motivated by a desire to forestall this I reinstated it. In truth the colour image, though lacking in contrast, does enlarge to show detail decently well. Perhaps the photograph could do with a little tweaking in Photoshop, to jog the contrast a touch, but nothing too major. Having said that, I don't believe NZ Crown copyright will let us do this.

This brings me to my main concern - the lack of love the Image-patrolling Taliban have for the terms of the NZ CC release. (Of course, their work is both essential and thankless, but I'm afraid I like pretty pictures too much to love them for what they do!) Current thinking (as in, for example, the recent VC FAC nominations) treats these NZ images as 'Fair use' only - only usable where a non-free picture cannot be found. I fear that this standard is unlikely to be met within most articles, but especially for those on the prolifically awarded/written about World War medals. Personally I see the terms of the NZ release as perfectly fine, but then I'm not philosophically wedded to the whole 'free encyclopaedia' mindset ('free' in its broadest 'do anything you like' sense). This whole issue could probably do with airing at WP:ODM, but my regretful feeling is that generous as the NZ govt have been, it's not nearly generous enough for Wikipedia's image police. While we might be able to get away with using these images by virtue of these page's relative obscurity, if someone so-inclined were to call us on it I'm not sure too many arguments could be made to retain them.

Xdamr^talk 23:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the colour pic back onto the main page as a secondary image, as the orphan-bot has tagged it for deletion. I havent had time to chase down the feeling on the NZ Crown Copyright issue, but will get onto it sometime! PalawanOz 22:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the B/W image seems to have survived its brush with deletion - hopefully as will the colour image. This 'orphan' patrol is rather irksome though. Perhaps (just a quick idea here) we ought to create internal WP:ODM 'gallery pages', which could display each of the various article images (in addition to their use in articles), so that there would be no more orphaning?

Xdamr^talk 02:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.1914-1918.net/pipsqueak.htm
  • In 1914 Star on 2011-05-25 02:43:11, 404 Not Found
  • In 1914 Star on 2011-06-02 02:40:38, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is interested they may see a contribution under this title in an article in a different Talk Page (this being perhaps something that could be related to this particular medal?).

The real national problem as suggested is the possible connection of this medal with history and architecture in the form of war memorials, but that perhaps is a different subject.

Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.143.169 (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind the article still fails on criterion one. I have added three citation neededs in the body, one for an unsourced claim, and two for claims that were sourced, but their sources did not support their statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothyjosephwood (talk • contribs) 04:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes two references to this document. At the end of the paragraph, there is a link to where this has been reproduced as an image file. I do not understand why removing the citation was done, and replaced with "citation needed"? Keith H99 (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]