Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 58

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

→

Archive 65

Ist World War Aces

I’m fairly new to WP and to the Project; I’m interested in WW1 Aviation and feel that would be an area in which I could meaningfully contribute (I’ve had a go by starting the article on ‘Gotha Raids’). Specifically, I have reasonable access to materials on some of the WW1 flying aces, of all nationalities, but initially I’d like to focus on British aces, then move on to others. However, I’d like some help to identify the characteristics regarding ‘notability’, sufficient to make potential subjects ‘deserving’ of an article (I think personally all WW1 aces are deserving of articles – but that’s another matter! – unless there’s a wider agreement to this, in which case I’ll very happily proceed on that basis).

The accepted definition of an ace is an airman who has shot down 5 or more enemy aircraft. Of its own, that doesn’t appear to justify an article in terms of notability; I’m also bearing in mind the WP Military History guidance for biographies. Trying to put some of the elements together as a starting-point to guide whether or not an article is worthwhile, I’d suggest the following criteria (all required):

• Ace

• Mentioned in secondary source (non-trivial)

• Recipient of (at least) an intermediate decoration - in the case of British aces, the DFC (Distinguished Flying Cross)

I’d also appreciate any thoughts on this and also regarding appropriate Categories etc. Scoop100 10:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As a practical matter, it may be easier to start with a list form (e.g. Aces of World War I) and then branch out particular individuals to their own articles once enough material is found on them to warrant it. This would allow a decent balance between comprehensiveness (we do, I think, want something on each of them) and not creating lots of small articles that are likely to draw deletion nominations. Kirill Lokshin 14:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kirill. I'm not an expert on aces, but I would imagine that the note-worthy content for each of them are likely to be very similar (X kills, flew with Squadron Y etc.). Certain ones who were, essentially, aces-among-aces (ie. Manfred von Richthofen, René Fonck) or those who achieved notoriety beyond being an excellent fighter pilot (ie. Hermann Göring) will of course merit full articles.

I would suggest drafting up a table for the article first (with columns such as confirmed kills, date of entry to combat, date of last combat mission, nationality, etc.) and fill it with the various aces. Once the table is created, see how much information about the aces remain. Oberiko 17:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have found a list at 'List of World War I flying aces by nationality' which I am gradually populating further with just the type of minimum information you've suggested and as per the tabular form already existing in the list. The list is currently nominated for merger, which seems to be a good idea to me. Just working on the UK aces list at present, I've noticed that all the names are Wiki-linked; I'm not sure that's the right way to go, as clearly not everyone on the list will merit (in terms of notability) an article in their own right. For the entries, I'm making, I'll Wiki-link only if I think an article will be worthwhile producing in due course. If there's no objections (which I'll raise on the 'Talk' page), I propose to start breaking links in the case of other names on the list which similarly don't appear to justify their own articles. I'll just jog along on this basis, creating the odd article and see how it goes; although happy to hear other views.Scoop100 12:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that List of World War I flying aces by nationality and List of World War I flying aces by number of victories have been up for merging for some time now, using a sortable list. How do you feel about merging these? Roger 07:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, yes, OK: Not too sure how you do that but I'll research in due course and have a go. Scoop100 20:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Cristero War FAR

Cristero War has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Marskell 15:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Military personnel categories (by nation)

Since we don't seem to be particularly tied up with any other major discussions at the moment, this may be a good opportunity to return to a topic that we've (abortively) discussed, with little resolution, for more than a year now: military personnel categories. During the last round of discussion, we came up with the idea of considering each "branch" of the category tree more-or-less separately, rather than doing everything at once; the most obvious place to start is probably the by-nation/by-country schema.

The current category system provides, essentially, a single category for each country involved; e.g. Category:French generals, Category:British soldiers, etc. This roughly matches the approach taken by by-nation category schemes for other professions.

The immediate problem with this is that military personnel, moreso than most other professions, have a tendency to serve in the military of a country other than the one in which they were born. This causes an ambiguity in the scheme: should Eugene of Savoy be under Category:French generals (by birth) or Category:Austrian generals (by service)? Or perhaps both? Obviously, he could be under Category:Generals born in France and Category:Generals of Austria, but we don't currently make such a distinction with the category names.

So the question, then, is this: what, if anything, do we want to do to resolve this? Should we institute separate categories for nations of birth and service (and under what names)? Or take some other approach?

Comments and suggestions would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 23:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What if we categorize by country of service, and the overarching "people by nation" categories? Using your example, Eugene would be in Category:French people (or perhaps, somewhat more accurately, a subcategory like Category:French emigrants) and Category:Generals of Austria. I like the idea of double categorizing by country of birth and country of service, but I think creating a separate set of categories for "generals (etc.) by country of birth" is a case of overcategorization, particularly as some of them will have very, very few occupants. Carom 15:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed entirely. (1) by country of service and (2) - if strictly necessary - by country of birth. It only needs a line of explanation in the category heading for the whole thing to make sense. Roger 06:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with the prior comment and add two recommendations. For a start, I would suggest we disambiguate the potentially confusing example Kirill brings up in our naming conventions and change "Austrian generals" to "Generals of Austria" (or something to that effect). Second, I would suggest we create categories for people serving in foreign armed forces; probably nothing very specific (such as rank or for which foreign military), just something like "Germans who served in foreign military services". Oberiko 17:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the first; the second requires thought. It means we have to decide the nationality of everyone so categorized, and there are editors who will push on marginal cases, largely for national glory: "See how many Generals are really Foolanders!" For the possibility of abuse here, consider Eugene himself; is he French, or is he Savoyard? (and is "Savoyards who served..." a subcat of "Italians...[ditto]"?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

However ... the distinction between "Austrian Generals" and "Generals of Austria" is completely lost on most people. It is also less intuitive to remember when typing in categories.Roger 06:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Best to remember not to exhaustively categorise. Just pick the most obvious categories. Think both ways. If a reader sees the category at the bottom of the article, will they be surprised (if so, leave out). Will someone expect to find the article in a particular category and be surprised if it is missing (if so, include). Otherwise, if controversial, leave out. And in general I would go by the service. Country of birth is not directly linked to which army you serve in (though it often is), whereas the army you serve in is directly relevant to someone's military profession. ie. "British Army WWI officers" should be interpreted as meaning "Officers in the British Army who served in WWI", rather than "Army officers born in Britain who served in WWI". The instinct to keep category names short is what can cause confusion, but it is sometimes better to use the shorter telegraphese phrase and put a more lengthy description of the criteria on the category page itself. Carcharoth 10:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite. Telegraphese plus explanations on the category page. Roger 06:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have only minor points to add. I agree with a common point made in this discussion, which is that, in military personnel categories, the country of service is more relevant than the country of birth. A soldier should be placed in the military personnel category of the country for which he served. While a category name like Category:Generals of Austria is perhaps a bit clearer than "Austrian generals" for describing this principle, it's still potentially ambiguous. But no one, I think, really wants to rename it something like Category:Generals who served in the armed forces of Austria. I agree with Carcharoth that detailed category descriptions are better than lengthy category names.

Oberiko brings up an interesting point: it might be useful to have a way of categorizing people who served in the armed forces of a foreign country. If determing nationality is sometimes tricky, as Septentrionalis suggests, then perhaps a reversal of Oberiko's idea will work. Rather than "Germans who served in foreign military services", maybe something like "Non-native German military personnel". Not the best wording, but you get the idea. It's still categorizing by country of service, but subcategorizing non-natives. Just an idea. —Kevin Myers 19:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we could have both "foreigners who served in the Foo military" (scheme 1) and "Bar people who served in foreign militaries" (scheme 2). Likely only major nations/states would have the two schemes, as there probably aren't enough entries for the smaller nations for either their native prominent military figures serving abroad or prominent foreign nationals serving in their military. By keeping it revolved around the larger nations, we also avoid the mess of having to label which potentially small nation the person in question was from. Oberiko 21:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I expect that certain editors from small nations will start screaming about discrimination and opression and so forth if they're excluded from the scheme; so we may have to sort it out anyways. (Which will, obviously, be a huge mess in places like the Balkans.) Kirill Lokshin 22:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Balkans :) Roger 06:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Forget about the Balkans! Does Washington get a mention as a foreign national as he was not born in the USA? What about Wellington? Before 1801 was he a foreigner serving in the British Army as he was born in the Ireland and not the United Kingdom of Great Britain? But as it ws the Royal Navy, if Wellington had been a naval officer would he then have had a different status as the Royal Navy was just a much the navy of the King of Ireland as the navy of the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Also what about all the British officers in the East India Company's army? What about all British officers in the the Army of India? Etc, etc --Philip Baird Shearer 17:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the point is that people only merit encyclopedic attention by being notable and should therefore be defined by their noteworthiness and not by relatively trivial criteria. Roger 21:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving forward

Looking through the above commentary, it seems that there is general support for a category system that classifies various personnel primarily (if not solely) by their country of service, rather than country of birth. This being the case, should we use the existing "Fooish generals" categories, or is there a preference for switching to the "Generals of Foo" that was suggested above?

Secondarily, it was mentioned above that we may want to develop a category system that allows for categorization by country of birth as well, provided the two are different. A number of objections to such a system have also been raised. Is there a great desire to go forward with such a scheme? And if so, what is our best option for doing so? Carom 19:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Spurious "Flag of the International Brigades": what to do?

"Flag of the International Brigades"

Flag of the Second Republic

The top flag here keeps appearing in Spanish Civil War articles. It claims to be the "Flag of the International Brigades". I don't think such a flag ever existed though individual units certainly had their own banners (bearing no resemblance to this one). The "Flag of the International Brigades" is a modified version of the (genuine) Spanish Republican Flag, with the arms of Spain replaced by the three-pointed star. Although it's a jolly colourful image, this is an entirely modern construct. In the absence of an authoritative source verifying that it was used at the time, I think it should be deleted. Is this a reasonable assessment? And, if so, how do I go about this? Roger 21:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first thing to do would be to get in touch with the original uploader, which appears to be commons:User:Ratatosk, and ask them for some clarification about the image (and a source, if they have one). It probably doesn't need to be deleted, per se, but if you're sure it's entirely spurious, you can remove it from all the articles that it is used in. Anything else would have to happen on Commons. Carom 21:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit I've never seen it before either, but Flags of the World shows it. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on a closer look, it refers to flags used by battalions of the International Brigades (with two examples). I followed these to a Spanish site which has home-made graphics with lettering done in Tippex. I don't think there's enough (any?) evidence to claim this as the generic IB flag. Roger 12:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm unaware that there ever was a generic IB flag (not that this is an area of great expertise for me). The closest I've seen to this particular flag was the flag for El Frente Popular de Madrid, which had the "caltrop" in a circle on a solid field. Have you heard from the uploader? Askari Mark (Talk) 17:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Spurious category Category:Military of Wales

User Trident13 has, in good faith, been adding various British naval ships with a Welsh theme in the name to the category "Military of Wales". I have undone these edits, as in my opinion, these ships are neither Welsh nor are they Military. Has anyone else come across these categories of convenience used to "claim" articles on spurious grounds? Any other opinions, am I being over-zealous on this? Emoscopes ^Talk 11:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

In background, I created the category to collect all of the Military associated articles in Wales together under one cat. For the Army and the RAF this is fairly easy as there are both regiments, forts and airfields. For the Senior Service (who I can't yet find an instalation/depot for in Wales) not so - even if, as in the case of HMS Cardiff, she was primarily Welsh manned: so for her not to have a connection in categorisation to Wales seems illogical. Happy to create a sub-cat if required - just can't think of a suitable name at present. And yes, I think a message to my talk page would have been useful, rather than having to track back your edit record here - therefore, assuming good faith, verging on zelous. Rgds, - Trident13 11:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Our posts obviously crossed over, you shall find I have indeed made a post on your talk page putting my case. I can see where you are coming from, but I do not feel that categories should be used to collect together tenuously connected information for purely flag-waving purposes. There were large Naval installations at Pembroke Dock, but I would argue against putting even these into a category "Military of Wales" - Welsh military installations would be far more suitable imho.

As for a sub-cat, what would that be? Royal Navy ships with majority-Welsh crews? Do you have verifiable sources to substantiate grounds for entering such a category? What does such a category really achieve? Emoscopes ^Talk 11:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Butting in here, I see a use for a very general category - Wales and Warfare, for instance - as a catch all (VC holders, forts, castles, campaigns, regiments

etc) into which the Military of Wales stuff could be merged but we should at all costs avoid over-categorising. Roger 12:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Roger is on the right track. We may need to look at similar categories and articles scattered about (Category:Military of Scotland, Military of Bermuda, etc.). Perhaps we ought to have "Military of ..." restricted to those of independent nations (while they have been independent), and perhaps something like "Military in ..." (if that's not too subtle a difference) for subordinate national divisions. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Didn't we go through this with the Military of/ in Kernow debate?

And fwiw CARDIFF wasn't predominantly Welsh manned, in the same way that neither GLASGOW nor EDINBURGH is predominantly Scots manned.

OTOH, RNSD Llangennech, there is a P2000 associated with Cardiff Uni AFAIK, Brawdy used to be an RNAS and I think there used to be a SOSUS station there as well.

ALR 17:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I vaguely recall that a number of similar categories were deleted on these grounds. I think Roger's idea is a good one here: create a Category:Wales and warfare, or perhaps Category:Military history of Wales, as a catch-all for such topics. Kirill Lokshin 18:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've moved this forward with a WP:CFD for renaming to Category:Military history of Wales. Roger 15:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Documentary category?

Since we seem to accept documentaries as an exceptable form of citation I am wondering if we should create an independent category to track articles that use information from such documentaries. I thinking something like {{documentary|channel name}} or {{documentary|show name}} which would place articles on wikipedia into a documentary category so we can use to track articles that have such information. I think this would benifit us on two fronts: 1) Some documetaries (like Dogfights (TV)) contain incorrect information; having an independent category to group such articles togather would make checking the articles for incorrect informtion easier, and 2) with regards to citations, an article earmarked as drawing information from a documentary may have an easier time reaching GA-class, A-class, and FA-class status if people know that the show(s) used to cite infomation in the article are documentaries (ie reliable sources) rather than simple fan cites. Thoughts on the matter? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Since we seem to accept documentaries as an exceptable form of citation..."

I didn't realise that we did and it saddens me that we do! But I agree that something to flag up these articles is for the best as it would make it easier to check the "facts" and add more appropriate, verifiable citations Emoscopes ^Talk 12:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay in returning to this subject; I have been busy and things always pile up when I am not looking. I think we could create a base template {{documentary}} with a link directly to a category like "Articles incorporating information from a documentary." For more specific breakdowns I think we could do {{tv-documentary}} and {{film-documentary}} for articles that incorporate information from a tv or film documetary. Comments? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Operation Lam Son 719 needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Operation Lam Son 719; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 15:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Military of Portugal tag

Is it possible that someone create a tag to allow the free use of images related to the portuguese military? This would greatly enhance my ability to produce good articles. Ill try to find a solution in the meantime.

Thanks in advance, HKFlash

What do you mean? Something in contrast w/ Wikipedia Images' policies? I am not sure i got your point. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

See Image:QP2.jpg and you'll get the idea. It is not a template, and no indication that the content should be free. Valentinian ^{T / C} 10:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the home-made license tag and contacted the author. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

New article series: Cannon

We now have a new article series on cannon (see template to right), and the following have or will go through DYK and GA process:

• Cannon
• ? English cannon
• ? Cannon in the Middle Ages
• ? Cannon operation
• ? History of cannon (newest article)

Short articles

• Korean cannon (I haven't really worked on this at all, due to being largely unfamiliar with the subject matter)

Drafts

• User:Grimhelm/Spanish cannon, work in progress.

I hope that eventually all the articles of the series will be GA, but I will need some help with the failed one on Cannon operation. I am also not as familiar with Spanish cannon, so I would like some expansion from other editors. Thanks! :-) --Grimhelm 12:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you nominate them for A class afterwards. We are a bit sceptic towards the GA rating that tends to be rather inconsistent. Wandalstouring 18:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. I think the current GAs - English cannon and Cannon in the Middle Ages - are the most likely A-class candidates at the moment. Could you tell me what you think Cannon operation's status is? I did a complete rewrite of it after it failed, and I think it is at least better than "start"-class at the moment. --Grimhelm 18:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Two more GAs. I will submit them to A-class review. --Grimhelm 09:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Waterloo_campaign_map.png

Though not the formally right place to ask a question like this, I think it is the place I will get the best answer. What is the correct name for maps like one to the right? The article Military strategy has an image caption that mentions the term stratagem. I had never heard of this word before. Does anyone among military history people have more information on this topic?

I am using the map for a comparison in the article on Supreme Commander, a video game.

--User:Krator (t c) 23:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Mirriam Webster points out in the etymology, "from Greek stratEgEma, from stratEgein to be a general, maneuver", that is it is trying to point out that it is a map of military maneuvers. However, this usage doesn't really occur in English. I'm much more used to the meaning in definition 1a: "an artifice or trick in war for deceiving and outwitting the enemy".

Anyway, I don't think there is any particular term for the general type of map. The Battle of Waterloo page note that it is 'a map of the campaign', which is how I would think of it. --Rindis 23:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Ronald Niel Stuart now open

The A-Class review for Ronald Niel Stuart is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 05:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather a good read. I enjoyed it. Roger 06:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Military navigational box

I believe we need a "Military navigational box" placed at the bottom of the main Military articles. Do you agree? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Could we work from (or clone) {{War}}? I don't know if trying to have a separate "military" box versus the "warfare" box is going to be the best option, since the topics do intersect pretty heavily. Kirill Lokshin 20:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The intersection dilemma is the reason why i came here. Otherwise, i'd have delved into it. I think the idea of cloning is interesting but let me first try to work on it at the sandbox and see if we can find room for all templates. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Australian Defence Force now open

The A-Class review for Australian Defence Force is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 06:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Private Military Companies / Private Security Companies

I am currently launching a total rewrite of the private military company article, which currently suffers from a serious lack of overarching structure or systemic analysis of what is a very complicated and often controversial subject. I've just started drafting the rewrite; it can be found here, and if anyone would like to lend a hand it would be most appreciated!

One controversy that I would like to resolve before I get too far into things is what, exactly, these companies (and this article) should be called. Peter Singer, one of the most-quoted authors on the subject, refers to them as "private military firms" (PMFs); another author, Deborah Avant, uses the term "private security companies (PSCs). There has been some debate there on the article talk page as to which term is ideal. I personally feel that the latter is better as it allows for coverage of a broader scope of companies who perform services which, if not identical, are not so varied as to warrant a separate article entirely, particularly when the distinction is often a vague one in practice. Nonetheless some companies would like to separate themselves from the more controversial players in the industry and maintain that "military" contractors and "security" contractors are two different things, which is a perspective that should at least be recognized in the final article. If any other MilHist editors have thoughts they would like to add on this, could you please leave a comment. Thanks. -- CJSC // Contact 13:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A recent BBC documentary I listened to referred to companies operating in Iraq and Afghanistan, including those training the Iraqi armed forces as well as those providing security services, as Private Security Companies. The interviewees included Tim Spicer, and PSC is used on his page while his employer's page, Aegis Defence Services, uses PMC. Obviously that doesn't help you at all, though. Leithp 18:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, raw google hits suggest that "private security company" is the most popular search term, but that is assuming that the subject is in fact one rather than two types of companies.

Two. See below. Jacob Haller 00:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert Young Pelton in his book "Licensed to Kill" effectively summarizes one position of the argument, which many companies who want to avoid the bad image of Spicer and his companies endorse.

There is much discussion over just how far security companies will expand in services. One of the fears is that these companies could morph into offensive organizations, effectively becoming proxy armies or mercenaries. As it stands now, security contractors serve a wide variety of functions in the war zone, with the primary constraint being that they can serve only in a defensive capability. If a private security contractor were assigned the offensive duties of a regular soldier that fine line between contractor and mercenary would be breached, and the PSC managing the contractor would have to begin identifying itself instead as a PMC — a private military company, the euphemism for a provider of mercenary services. (Pelton, pp 109)

It's not clear to me however that such a company would "have to" identify as a PMC if it performed offensive duties, particularly when most of the industry is seeking legitimacy and wants to avoid the mercenary label. "The offensive duties of a regular soldier" is a very narrow definition of a soldier's duties, particularly in modern full-spectrum or counterinsurgency warfare, where what exactly constitutes a front-line offensive operation is more ambiguous. (Peter Singer makes this argument more extensively on pp 88-91 of "Corporate Warriors".) Even unarmed contractors have a military impact, which makes me think this distinction between "security" and "military" is not a useful one.

Both Singer and Avant eschew this typology entirely for a tip-of-the-spear model that I think does a much clearer job of sorting out companies by the tasks they perform; there is still the issue of what to call the companies that make up the industry, though. While it's important to make clear in the future article that PSCs are not all like Spicer's Aegis or Sandline, I don't think the more offensive-oriented firms can be walled off as a separate topic. Just looking for a consensus agreement on this before proceeding further. Thanks, -- CJSC // Contact 23:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Private Security Company can refer to either of two (if not any of several) very different institutions:

• For-profit military units/security services hired by states or corporations (private in the sense of for-profit).
• Voluntary defense associations/security services which people might form or hire (private in the sense of non-state).

These are not logically exclusive, but groups like Blackwater, Executive Solutions, the Baldwin-Felts Gang, etc. have too many government ties to quality for the second definition. Tucker and Molinari proposed non-state, potentially for-profit defense, sparking debates within libertarian socialist, market liberal, and libertarian capitalist thought about the relative virtues of non-state community militias, non-state for-profit defense, and tax-funded defense. Which is rather unimportant to WikiProject Military History, but it does show that there are at least two meanings, and using the term Private Security Company would require disambiguation. Jacob Haller 00:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with those theorists — is this a similar concept to what's currently being covered at the private defense agency article? Are they commenting on the current PSC market or hypothesizing about a future "libertarian military"? If I understand it right it seems the second sort of private security company you're describing remains largely theoretical at the moment, so I think the article titled "private security company" would best focus on the existing industry, with a disambiguation note at the top directing readers to either private defense agency or some other appropriate article. Would that make sense? -- CJSC // Contact 00:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

More or less, yeah. I'm not sure how many Google hits for PSC discuss PMCs, how many discuss PDAs, and how many discuss something else. Which was why I suggested using PMC despite the preponderance of PSC Google hits. Jacob Haller 01:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we call them what they are, Mercs! Just because they have ties to government does not change thier status. The roles of these groups in iraq is not properly documented here, nor the fact these groups are not accountable under normal military command structures (or the iraqi government). Hypnosadist 02:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's the ones that do have ties to governments (or their equivalents), not the PDAs, that ARE mercs. But apparently there is some legal definition of mercenary which doesn't resemble the everyday definition of merc. Legally, the Gurkha units of the British Army are mercs, and legally, Blackwater's forces aren't. Odd that. But when people are talking about these groups, they usually say mercenaries (if people don't say hired thugs), and when people talk about mercenaries, they mean groups like Blackwater. Jacob Haller 02:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My preference is to use the term “private military firm” (PMF) in preference to “private military company” (PMC), since the latter invites confusion with “mercenary company”; however, which is used is a matter of taste, and the other should also be mentioned in any article on the subject. I would not, however, encourage the use of “private defense agency” (PDA) – which in any case intimates a governmental or quasi-governmental organization – or “private security company” (PSC).

PDAs are pretty much a theoretical construct, and likely to stay that way since to employ them is tantamount to surrendering a key sovereign power of a nation state; accordingly, the term PDA should not be used to encompass PMFs/PMCs or PSCs. PMFs are, for all intents and purposes, “mercenaries”, in that they essentially offer military services for hire, but differ from “true mercenary companies” in that they’re not supposed to operatie in such a manner that they usurp their client’s sovereign responsibilities and operational decision-making roles. While PMFs can and do offer some services provided by PSCs, it’s neither their raison d’être nor their bread and butter. The principal roles of PMFs (aside from strict mercenary roles) have been to train (usually third-world) national military forces, provide military specialist services or training (e.g., staff work, intelligence, electronic warfare, engineering, logistics planning, skilled maintenance, pilots and other aircrew, etc.), and even operations planning (under the guise of “advisory” services).

PSCs on the other hand, mostly provide security guard and body guard services; they are widely accepted, and most countries which permit them to operate domestically have established civil law concerning their operations. As I pointed out earlier, PMFs are quite capable of providing the same services, but their main motivation for “reinventing themselves” as PSCs has a great deal to do with their political unpalatability and steadily tightening international restrictions on their narrowly legitimate business operations – as well as the bad press they’ve received from their more “adventurous” – and more truly “mercenary” – peers. The key discriminator between PMFs and PSCs is that the former’s primary role is focused on supporting military operations (through advice or the provision of special skills) or engaging in them to counter the assaults of military, paramilitary, or guerrilla entities against their client(s). PSCs are much more oriented toward police-like and protective activities than in being capable of or conducting military actions.

Legal PMFs operate in that grey area between mercenary and constabulary activities. PMFs contract their services with legal entities, usually official governments; mercs are actually willing to overthrow same on behalf of others wanting to become the new government. The capabilities and resources required to be a PMF or mercenary company are pretty much identical … which is what makes governments nervous about them (since there is no difference between a rogue PMF and a merc outfit). Askari Mark (Talk) 04:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The principal roles of PMFs ... have been to train (usually third-world) national military forces, provide military specialist services or training (e.g., staff work, intelligence, electronic warfare, engineering, logistics planning, skilled maintenance, pilots and other aircrew, etc.), and even operations planning (under the guise of “advisory” services). ... The key discriminator between PMFs and PSCs is that the former’s primary role is focused on supporting military operations.

The thing is, there are companies which self-identify as PSCs (as opposed to those nigh-outlaw PMFs over there) that perform these exact same services. While there is clearly a difference between, say, the activities of Executive Outcomes in Angola versus DynCorp training police units in Iraq, both have a military operational application. Blackwater contracts in Iraq for security details, but it's also got an air unit and has proposed deploying as peacekeepers to the Sudan, so is it a PSC or a PMF? There is considerable overlap going on here. So it's not clear to me that these should be split into separate topics, rather than noted as representing the range of services performed by PXCs. I'm not necessarily opposed to using PMF for the article title (whatever is used, the alternatives should be covered in the article, I agree) but I think "security" allows for neutral coverage of relevant material.

Also, sorry if this section is running too long — I appreciate the perspectives being gained here, but if this needs to be moved to the article page (where no one has commented on the proposal yet) I'd understand. -- CJSC // Contact 05:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My idea is to briefly mention the development of hired armed men in the modern age. We can track back such hired armed men at least to the Swiss, resulting more or less in an unbroken tradition up to nowadays (Vatican). Furthermore the UN dispute on mercenaries and the followig renaming of the state owned mercenaries, especially of France and Spain, could be reflected. Thus we provide the reader some insight why private military forces have such strange legal definitions and what other security companies exist under the same definitions, but with a differing scope and tradition. Wandalstouring 06:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. One of oldest, I suppose, which might qualify, would be the Celtic legion (thousand years history, formed Pharoah's bodyguard and later fought with Julius Caesar). The Middle Ages are indeed a very rich source: Welsh mercenary bowmen at Agincourt (under Dafydd Gam). I've always thought the single-minded greediness of the Condottieri and the White Company rather entertaining (though not if you're at the brunt, of course). Roger 07:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

How about employing an "exclusionary rule" approach: If the entity in question doesn't offer those services unique to PMFs, then it is a PSC; if it formerly operated as a PMF, but has formally (and citably) ceased providing those services, it is currently a PSC, but with its former PMF role noted? (This latter isn't a burden, since many "re-brand" themselves by changing their names.) If they claim to be a PSC, but offer PMF services, well, we should categorize them as a PMF and in text note that they "claim to be a PSC, but also offer PMF services" (words to that effect). Askari Mark (Talk) 16:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Missile/Infobox rocket proposed merger

I noticed a banner for this project at the top of Template talk:Infobox Missile, so I thought I should drop a note to say that I have proposed that it be merged into Template:Infobox rocket. This is because the two templates carry very similar content, and the few items that are currently present in Infobox Missile that are not present in Infobox rocket can very easily be added, if and when the pages are merged.

Discussion is located at Template talk:Infobox rocket. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 13:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a merge w/ a new component to be added "Type {{{type}}}" so one can define whether it is a missile or a rocket. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles for creation needs your input!

Hi there! An anonymous contributor has made a proposal in today's (27 May) entries that I believe requires an expert's opinion. If this is no longer today, you can find it at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2007-05-27. I'd appreciate it if you could review the request, and either accept or decline. Alternately, if you are uncomfortable with the process at WP:AFC, please let me know here or on my talk what you recommend and I will do the grunt work! Thanks again for your help.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 21:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide some more details. Which proposal? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed category mergers

Does anyone object to merging category:Campaigns of World War I and category:Theatres of World War I into one single category category:Campaigns and theatres of World War I? If so, I propose the same exercise with applicable World War II categories. As theatre merely describe the area in which battles are fought, and campaigns are almost always named after the area in which they are fought, the two terms are interchangeable. Roger 14:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't object. Quite often the two are interchangeable and refer to the same thing in casual discussion. Oberiko 15:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No objections as well. It would be an easy job as the cats are not too much populated. Please inform us after it is done so we can delete them. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The reddundant categories are in category:Milhist temp (which can be deleted as well). Thanks. Roger 11:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No problems here either. Kirill Lokshin 15:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, the same thing should probably happen to the ACW categories, as that's the only other place where we have separate campaign/theater ones. If we clean that up, we can have the double name as a standard across the board. Kirill Lokshin 15:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Consider it done.Roger 17:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me, might as well take care of Kirill's point at the same time. Carom 17:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Roger 17:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed rename: category:Military units and formations etc

This was touched on during the last discussions and was left inclusive. I'd know like to propose that all World War I and World War II military units and formations categories (ie category:Military units and formations of World War I and category:Military units and formations of France in World War II etc) be renamed to category:Armed forces of World War I, category:Armed forces of the United States in World War II etc. This has several major advantages:

• overcomes the problem about the expression "military units" excluding the air force and navy for many people
• is broader in meaning and therefore better suited as a catch-all head category name
• is "instant" doesn't need thinking about to work out what it means
• is shorter and much closer to actual everyday speech
• is easier to type (less than half the keystrokes) and remember
• is the expression used by the man in the street, the press and the branches of the armed forces

This would involve a major renaming (perhaps 50 categories for both world wars) but I've seen much bigger groups go through the categories for discussion mill without breaking the system. I'll gladly take responsiblity for seeing it through. Comments? Roger 14:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got a quick question. I'm not sure how we handle it now, but how will we distinguish official units from national military forces vs. irregular forces such as partisans? Oberiko 15:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If we continue using the existing scheme for such things, we'd wind up with something like "Irregular armed forces of ...". Kirill Lokshin 15:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Err, this is a bit more complex than that, since the scope is not limited to WWI & WWII; note that the category names are mirrored across a much wider tree (c.f. Category:Military units and formations of the American Civil War, Category:Military units and formations of Germany, etc.). So any rename would need to be done over the entire set, or we lose all the benefits of consistent naming. [User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] 15:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and it gets worse still when you go up the other set and find they're all named category:Military of Foo etc. This needs more thought. Roger 12:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Aside from that, I think this eliminates one ambiguity by introducing another one. The current scheme does have the messy "military" in each name, but it's clearly limited to units and formations. The new names would be much broader in scope; personnel, service branches, etc., would all fall under "armed forces" without being units per se. I don't think that reducing everything to catch-all categories is a good idea; they make sense to someone browsing down from Category:World War II, but someone getting to them from Category:Military units and formations will suddenly encounter unrelated articles.

I think the simpler solution might be to eliminate "military" entirely, leaving it as implicit in "Units and formations of the United States in World War II". I don't know whether this will fly on CFD, though. Another option might be to use "armed forces" explicitly as a service name would be (e.g. "Units and formations of the United States armed forces in World War II", mirroring "Units and formations of the United States Marine Corps in World War II", etc.), but this produces a longer category name, which may not be the most desireable thing. Kirill Lokshin 15:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. My feeling is that category names throughout need to be shorter and much less clunky. If the structure is too complicated it won't get used, which is what's happening at the moment. Roger 12:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Kirill. "Armed forces of Foo" might be seen by some as redundant with "Military of Foo," so I think we would just be introducing a new ambiguity here. The removal of "military" might be a better solution, but I can imagine that might be problematic in the broader community (I seem to remember some CfD objections over the "Divisions of Foo in the Bar war" categories, but I can't find the discussion, so I may be imagining it). Carom 17:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you about the Armed forces of Foo and Military of Foo collision. The solution may be to rename Military of Foo to something like Foo and Warfare, which has the advantage of being a less inelegant and more everday construction. Not all conflicts fit the structure we're trying to impose. A case in point is the Vietnam War. The category:Military units and formations of the Vietnam War contains (1) category:Military units and formations of the United States in the Vietnam War and (2) Vietnam War U.S. forces (which more or less exactly duplicate each other) and nothing at all about the Viet Cong/North Vietnamese Army (whose structure was much less elaborate and hierarchical). Roger 12:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of those cases are just old categories that were never cleaned up to the standard scheme, but I see your point. I'm not sure that "warfare" is a good fit for top-level category names, though, as it doesn't mesh well with peace-time armed forces; possibly there's some cleaner variant we could go for?

One (rather outlandish) scheme might be to flip the nesting of the categories to make "Military history of Foo" ("military history" is applicable cross-service even in BE, no?) the top-level category, with an "Armed forces of Foo" category under it. We'd wind up with something like:

• Military history of France

• Armed forces of France

• Units and formations of France
• Military personnel of France
• ...

The "Military of Foo" categories would be entirely eliminated in such a scenario. Kirill Lokshin 16:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This might be a workable scheme (and while we're at it, we can perhaps wrap up the personnel discussion languishing further up the page, no?) Carom 16:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks very promising. May I come back on this more fully later? I'm tidying up WW2 a bit and it's throwing up all sorts of interesting issues. Roger 08:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fallen Soldier Battle Cross

Could someone please work on Fallen Soldier Battle Cross? I don't know its history. And it might need to be moved to Battlefield Cross. --SueHay 22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Important image on deletion review

See Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Image:WWII_Poland_Invasion_1939-09-01.jpg. See the image. The image, used to illustrate begining of WWII and German invasion of Poland, is being questioned as 'unimportant' and 'unnotable', thus failing fair use rationale. Please share your opinions.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Main Military article issues

I've been a bit busy lately w/ editing the main (one of the main?) article(s) of this project. The article until today is still suffering from the lack of a structure and a scope. This is what i've noted so far:

• Definition - It has to do w/ the scope. Do you think removing military force would be a good idea? I mean what about A Military can be defined as the profession of arms, the military services, or combat operations... instead?
• Other uses of Military - Do you think the section title is appropriate/accurate?
• Military ethics - Do you think such a section can be added to the article? Also, do you think that an article about Mil ethics has to be created? We have Just war but that is a more specific article.

If you have any other note, feel free to discuss it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Like most the 'central' articles relating to the military, the article doesn't have any focus or consistency and is largely an eccentric collection of information, jargon (does anyone understand the explanation of 'military transport'?) and trivia. I've just removed the content of the 'references' section as none of the three books listed there ('Why the Allies Won', 'The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Pentagon' and 'Get Yamamoto') seem at all relevant to the topic of the article, much less being "Major books for understanding the role of the military, and the civilian leadership of the military" (though Overy's book is very good). I've also removed most of the external links and some of the 'see alsos' as they seem pretty marginal to the article. --Nick Dowling 08:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I struggled with it and share many of Nick's misgivings. I wasn't particularly impressed with the various definitions of military in the intro (especially as they're completely unsourced) largely because it promotes the notion that "military" means different things in BrEng and USEng, which isn't the case. I'll have a crack at sorting this out later today hopefully. I'm also a bit surprised by the constant use of military as a noun: this is quite rare on both side of the Atlantic, (the usual collocation being the military, as a catch-all colloquialism for the armed forces) and whilst the use of militaries isn't actually wrong, it's very uncommon. Roger 08:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I share the same concerns. Can we define a structure? Could you please see if the following topics are to be discussed in the article? Please discuss adding or removing any topic you believe it would/would not fit:

• Lead. Can we find a better defintion?
• Etymology and meaning of the word
• Military objectives
• Military science
  • Military history
  • Military doctrine(s)
  • Military strategy
  • Military intelligence
• Military ethics
• Military logistics and expenditure
  • Military equipments
  • Military expenditure
• Military branches and ranks

-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, I'd try to create sections that can be linked off to other main articles, and add in some non-technical material that's missing:

• Lead
• Etymology and meaning
• Military science
  • Military tactics, strategy, and doctrine
  • Military equipment and technology
  • Military organization
  • Military logistics
  • Military intelligence?
• Military history
• Military culture (not the best word, perhaps?)
  • Military ethics and law
  • Military politics, militarism, etc.
  • Depictions of the military?

Kirill Lokshin 11:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks more compact and neat. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Echo Fayssal's remarks. Other thoughts ... It might be nice to get some humo(u)r in it somewhere: there's a rich tradition of lampooning military stereotypes, which easily make up a section. Civilian applications of military technology: a modern example is GPS (and, of course, the Internet). Roger 12:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol! No problem w/ that but the main concern is that may attract vandals. Anyway, we are the military force of Wikipedia and we all got the sticks. Go for it. As for the civilian application, i believe we just can include them in "Military equipment and technology" for the time being until it gets expanded. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I like Kirill's proposed layout -- would a better alternative title for the "Military culture" section be Civil-military relations? (Which there isn't apparently an article on yet, although there is civilian control of the military.)There might need to be a distinction between internal military ethics and laws (under the military organization heading?) and external ones applied by the society at large (under this heading) if so. -- CJSC // Contact 23:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In some ancient states, like Sparta, it is hard to find the civilians, military culture is insofar more suitable to summarize such a wide scope. Wandalstouring 05:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think Sparta might be a bit of an extreme example, wouldn't it? Isn't there usually at least some distinction between the warrior caste and the rest of a society, even if the latter sometimes take up arms as a militia or levy? Maybe it's just me, but a "Military culture" header sounds like it would be about uniforms, esprit de corps, etc. So if civ-mil relations is really out maybe there's something else that could work? "Military and Society"? Or even just "Military politics"? -- CJSC // Contact 07:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What about military and culture? So we can discuss the position of the military within the culture and how the culture within the military itself is (if there is a difference beween civilian and military culture or we have to use other distinctions like culture of the nobles, culture of the freemen, culture of the slaves). Wandalstouring 10:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The section is titled "military and society". I thought the this title gives enough room to both [civil-military relations], antimilitarism and [depictions of the military]. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a question before peer reviewing the Military article. Does this version deserves a B class status? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Colonel Westhusing

Hello. Yesterday I started the article Theodore S. Westhusing, about a very well respected U.S. Army Colonel who apparently committed suicide when he saw what was really happening in Iraq (he was a West Point Professor of Philosophy and English and had not been in theater until January of 2005). I lack the time and specialized knowledge to do the topic justice. Was hoping someone here might look into it. Thx. JDG 22:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A single wound could have been suicide or a sniper. What was his rank? If you say highest ranking it is a must. This voluntary section needs expansion. Did he join the Army/Marines/Air Force/National Guard to make the trip to Iraq or did he join the Army/Marines/Air Force/National Guard long ago and did volunteer for a service term in Iraq? What where his subjects as a professor and where did he give lessons. Without such verifiable info provided, I can't determine whether the whole story isn't a hoax. Wandalstouring 10:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Wandalstouring. I could answer your points one by one, but it would be easier and better for you to simply check out the first of the "External Links" on the Westhusing stub page (that is: http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=2440 ). In that newspaper article (it was printed in the Texas Observer the same day it appeared in the web edition) you'll find answers to everything you asked and more. Thx. JDG 15:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Waffen SS

This article is one of the worse articles I have seen in Wikipedia. It needs to be fixed hard. Yet it has been granted "B" scale in quality, while it doesn't meet several of the criteria for this. For example, it doesn't cite any sources. We need to fix it...--Cerejota 03:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ratings (up to and including B-class) can be assigned by any user - including you! If the article does not meet the criteria, feel free to assign a different rating. As far as fixing it goes, you might try asking at the World War II or Germany military history task forces - or, if you have the time and resources, making improvements yourself. Carom 03:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Red Cliffs now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Red Cliffs is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Split of Category:World War II films

I've proposed subcategorizing the World War II films category by theater and/or front. If you're interested, please offer comments, naming suggestions, or help with recategorizing articles at Category talk:World War II films#Proposed split. Thanks. --Quuxplusone 20:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Replied on category talk page. Carom 21:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A-class review for Battle of Arras (1917) now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Arras (1917) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Carom 19:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Naval Service?

Hi. I need some clarification from someone better informed than myself. See here. The Royal Navy is usually used when referring to the British Naval Service, although the latter is the officially correct (if somewhat obscure) term. AFAIK, the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines are two components of the Naval Service, and it is therefore technically incorrect to refer to the RM as a subservient component of the RN. Can an expert clarify this either way? Emoscopes ^Talk 23:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not easy.

RM have Royal Navy ID cards, but I couldn't point you to a source on that.

OTOH Commandant General RM is subordinate to CINCFLEET, as Commander UK Amphibious Force. So the RM has no discrete existence. CTC is part of the empire of Flag Officer Training and Recruiting. What used to be the staff of CG is now fully integrated with the rest of CINCFLEET staff in Northwood and on Whale Island. To all intents and purposes the RM is part of the RN. Some don't like that though, but the majority of senior Officers (Major and above) are pretty sanguine about it.

Hope that helps.

ALR 19:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sea rations

I recently came across a doctoral dissertation on the food in the Swedish navy 1500-1800 which also has some info on other contemporary European navies. I'd like to include some information on it, but I'm not entirely sure where it belongs. A separate article seems like too much and there's a jungle of articles about naval warfare and materiel out there. Any suggestions would be most welcome.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A naval rations article may be the simplest approach here, at least for the time being, but I wouldn't necessarily consider the topic to be unsuited for its own article if there's enough material to support one; c.f. Swedish allotment system. Kirill Lokshin 17:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Red Cliffs needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Red Cliffs; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Poll for article move at Wokou

There's currently a poll on a proposed article move at Wokou. Poll options include:

• Move to Japanese pirates
• Move to Wakō
• Move to Wōkòu
• Keep at Wokou

Please vote if you have an opinion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Arras (1917) needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Battle of Arras (1917); please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! Carom 22:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Romanian Land Forces now open

The A-Class review for Romanian Land Forces is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kyriakos 12:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Cannon now open

The A-Class review for Cannon is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 16:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Niel Stuart

I don't normally canvass in this manner, but the FAC for the above article is dying due to lack of interest. Nobody has commented on it for a week! Could anybody with an interest in the subject please visit and comment on it if you have the time as any pointers or information to improve it would be gratefully recieved.--Jackyd101 23:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll review it as soon as i get a chance. Raymond Palmer 00:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Uniforms

Hey guys, long time wikipedia reader, first time caller. I was looking for pictures/diagrams of uniforms of the Canadian Navy from circa 1960s today, but was surprised at how little wikipedia has. I then followed my way here, and noticed uniforms are not on the "to-do" list. I would be happy to participate in this endeavour (creating diagrams like this:File:Combatshirta.png) if someone could explain to me the process/protocol for starting a new project. I wouldn't know where to source images from, but could happily photoshop them into diagram style gif/png files. Looking forward to guidance, --Matt 02:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your initiative Matt. But how many military uniform pictures do we have? I'll try later to find an approximative amount through Commons and see if we really need such a task. If it has to be started, it should be part of the existing task forces. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization

Is there a convention about when to capitalize ranks? I'm sure they should be when used as a proper name, e.g. "He saw General Lee." But otherwise I would abstain. e.g. "He attained the rank of major." Someone went through Edmund Rice (general), capitalizing all the ranks, and I'm tempted to rv the changes. But then I looked at Brigadier General and ranks seem to be capitalized throughout. What do you all think?--Appraiser 03:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought we had guidance on this, but I can't find it now either. As I recall, we follow similar conventions on titles and such, capitalizing them when the rank is associated with a name, but using lower case when just referring to the level of rank. Askari Mark (Talk) 16:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe Askari Mark is correct here. Carom 17:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the way I understand it too, although I've seen (and corrected) stuff like "Smith was a Sergeant in the army" countless times, which to me as an Editor here looks rather odd. But notice in the Sergeant article, sergeant (and all other ranks) are capitalized. Looks like something written in the 18th century, when Things were Capitalized for no apparent Reason. —Kevin Myers 17:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep. As far as I know, we've always deferred to the general MoS on capitalizing titles on this; it's just that a large number of articles simply get the capitalization wrong regardless. Kirill Lokshin 17:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify this, the issue is covered in the MoS here, funnily enough I had a conversation with another user about this a couple of days ago. Leithp 06:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Kirill, didn't we used to have a summary of this somewhere on the project's talk pages or else in WP:MOSNAME or some such? I'm pretty sure there was something on this. There's a MOS section on titles, but military ranks areno longer addressed there. There ought to be something on it in both. Askari Mark (Talk) 17:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall having something like this on the project page, but it probably would be a good idea to put something together, as the question does seem to come up fairly frequently. Anyone feel like trying their hand at drafting something up? Kirill Lokshin 23:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What about something like:

Ranks should only be capitalized when used as a title referring to a named individual, for example, "Captain Smith was wounded in the attack." In other cases, the rank should be left uncapitalized, for example, "the captain was wounded in the attack," or "John Smith, a captain, was wounded in the attack."

Feel free to edit as appropriate. Carom 23:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. You might consider using a two-word rank in the example, such as major general, because I get the impression that people have more trouble with the capitalization of two-word ranks than with one-word ones. I rarely see someone capitalize "private", I guess because it doesn't sound as imposing as "major general".

While we're at it, we might want to address other style issues about rank. For example, is it brigadier-general, or brigadier general? Hyphen or no hyphen? Or does this vary by nation or era? Do we want to advocate a house style or just leave it alone?

And our style guide should probably address capitalization of rank in disambiguation. Now and then, someone will rename a page (like here) because they think "general" should be capitalized in disambiguation. Capitalizing of "general" in disambiguation is currently inconsistent, with lower case probably prevalent, e.g.: Charles Lee (general), John Glover (general), Diophantus (general), David Henderson (general), John Nixon (general), Theodoros Pangalos (general), Demosthenes (general), etc., vs. Artapanus (General), John Forbes (General), etc. —Kevin Myers 14:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• In the article Brigadier General there are about 50 instances of ranks being capitalized and none of them are proper names. I'm planning to de-cap them at some point, but I suspect I'll get resistance or reversions.--Appraiser 17:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

For the Army!

Hi! I just uploaded those... they are photos of the army parade in Rome held last saturday, including some shot of military and peacekeeping vehicles, units and corps from all the world (especially Italy, of course).

We need help in categorizing them, adding info about weapons snown, descriptions and so. Since en.wiki is full of weapon-lovin' redn.. has some *very nice* projects about army and weapons :-D i am calling for your help.

If you happen to have some spare time, you could take a look, at last year ones, too... --Jollyroger 15:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Neat. I was in Rome over the weekend, just as a tourist, and came across the parade by accident, not knowing what the occasion was. Thanks for the photos. LordAmeth 16:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

And you felt quite impressed, didn't you?

Ok, help identifing those images an maybe my country won't invade yours :-D --Jollyroger 21:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to help with the identifications, but Italy is far from my area of expertise (pre-modern Japan). Sorry. But, yes, the parade was quite impressive. I can't recall the last time I saw a proper military parade at all. And, since it ran right past the Collosseum, there was the implied connection to Roman heritage and power, etc etc. An impressive undertaking, ideologically speaking. Good stuff. LordAmeth 22:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Project timeline

Having been slightly bored yesterday, I went and dug up a few interesting (in my opinion, anyways) bits for an impromptu timeline of the project:

• October 21, 2002 - WikiProject Battles is created by TeunSpaans, at the suggestion of ktsquare and Eclecticology.
• April 10, 2003 - WikiProject Military is created by Stan Shebs.
• January 27, 2004 - WikiProject Wars is created by Ilyanep.
• October 23, 2005 - WikiProject Battles and WikiProject Wars merge to form WikiProject Military history.
• January 15, 2006 - The project's first task force, covering Canadian military history, is created.
• January 28, 2006 - The first project worklist is created.
• February 5, 2006 - The first project coordinator election concludes.
• March 10, 2006 - An internal peer review process is created.
• March 12, 2006 - The WikiChevrons are introduced as a project award.
• May 4, 2006 - The project worklist is retired in favor of an automated assessment scheme.
• August 26, 2006 - The second project coordinator election concludes.
• September 1, 2006 - The A-Class review process is instituted; the first article to pass this review is Basiliscus.
• September 8, 2006 - WikiProject Military is absorbed into the project.
• February 19, 2007 - The peer review and A-Class review processes are consolidated into a combined review department.
• February 25, 2007 - The third project coordinator election concludes.
• March 25, 2007 - An ongoing article-writing contest is introduced within the project.

The obvious question then: would this be interesting enough to visitors to be worth putting this on the project page somewhere, or would it be too much navel-gazing? Kirill Lokshin 17:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's not kid ourselves: that's a considerable amount of navel-gazing ;). That doesn't mean it wouldn't be worthwhile putting it on the project page. It gives an idea of how this particular portion of the Wikipedia community has grown and developed over time, and I think that may be interesting to people who happen to stumble across the project page. One note, though. You should probably add the actual creation of the A-Class review process to that list as well; it was one of the first of its kind, after all. Carom 17:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever tested your Wikipediholism degree Kirill? All task forces can be added as well. I think your work above needs to eb templated for reference. :) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Membership benchmarks would be of interest too. First time I checked, there were about 12 people signed up as project members. I understand that has increased somewhat. ;-) —Kevin Myers 17:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as a Wiki-researcher, this is invaluable piece of history. This should certainly be noted somewhere - perhaps expanded into article for Signpost - after all, MILHIST is one of the oldest and most active wikiprojects, it certainly could do with an article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've taken the liberty of adding this to the main project page; feel free to add to it, write a little introduction for it, move it aorund the page, etc. etc. Carom 22:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Cursed soldiers

There is a discussion how to better name this article, as it is agreed the translation of Polish term is not fortunate. Alternative include 'damned soldiers', 'outcast soldiers' or 'armed anti-communist resistance in Poland'. Comments, especially on the more descriptive name and what would MILHIST guidelines suggest, are appreciated.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, that's an interesting question, to be sure. Is there any real English-language material on the topic? Obviously, if there's some standard variation that's used, that might be the best one to adopt here. Aside from that:

• I'd try to avoid coming up with a translation of the term if there isn't a standard one in English; it's somewhat ORish, and is likely to cause no end of disputes.
• "armed anti-communist resistance in Poland" might be suitable, but is rather convoluted, and likely somewhat ambiguous; the P-S War certainly involved "armed anti-communist resistance". Something like "armed anti-communist resistance movements in Poland" may be clearer here.
• Another option might be simply to put the article at Żołnierze wyklęci. There's certainly ample precedent for using non-English terms as titles when no real English equivalent exists; for example, we have Oberkommando der Wehrmacht rather than any of the translated versions.

Kirill Lokshin 23:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

An interesting challenge. Kirill's suggestion would be a good one, but Żołnierze wyklęci is unrecognizable to English-speakers like me who are familiar with topic. It's not in the same category with the far more familiar "Oberkommando der Wehrmacht", which is easily recognized by most serious students of WWII. WP:NAME recommends "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." However, there isn't any. The few references I've come across have usually used the term "Cursed Soldiers" (and "Damned Soldiers" would have a different connotation) – unfortunately, that was long ago and I don't remember what those sources might have been (other than that I first learned of it from a Polish veteran from one of the units, back when I was a teenager). I'll pop over there and see if I can be of help to Piotrus and friends. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's don't forget that wikipedia makes standards (if we like it or not). I suggest to use cursed soldiers if it is the correct translation(sources?) and redirect from the Polish name. Wandalstouring 15:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, may I suggest copying your posts to Talk:Cursed soldiers? Some editors may not follow this noticeboard too closely.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Landshut/Landeshut

This is an utter mess and I'm pretty amazed has not yet been corrected.

Battle of Landshut says there have been two battles called the Battle of Landshut. This is just plain wrong. Battle of Landshut (1809) which occurred in the Napoleonic Wars took place in Landshut, Bavaria.

Battle of Landshut (1760) which occurred in the Seven Years War took place in Landeshut, Silesia now Kamienna Góra in Poland. To rub salt into the wounds Battle of Landeshut refers to the Napoleonic battle only, that article places the battle in Silesia despite the engagement occuring just after Battle of Abensberg in Bavaria!

German Wikipedia appears to have all these battles placed correctly.

My suggestion? Move Battle of Landshut (1809) back to Battle of Landshut and Battle of Landshut (1760) to Battle of Landeshut removing the duplicate page that already exists. Centy – – 22:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

and add a disambiguation because both names are almost similar. Wandalstouring 10:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep the dates in the corrected page names as an aid to disambiguation. Barliner 15:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have moved Battle of Landshut (1760) to Battle of Landeshut (1760). Battle of Landshut is now the disambig page, and Battle of Landeshut redirects to it. Anthony Appleyard 21:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That's an acceptable solution. Wandalstouring 12:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Shay's Rebellion, Blade, & White House

I added the WPMILHIST template to these pages and decided they were solid B-class articles. However, White House is a GA-class. Just wanted to notify you. Thanks, Meldshal42 17:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination for Stanley Internment Camp

Alright, I'm finally satisfied with the state of Stanley Internment Camp, and I've nominated it for GA status. Hopefully the images won't be a problem. I had to tag 2 out of 3 of the images as fair use, justifying that since the camp was only in existence from 1942 to 1945, a new version of the images cannot be produced. The third image, fortunately, should be public domain since it was Crown copyrighted more than 50 years ago. I've uploaded it to Commons instead. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Ironclad warship now open

The A-Class review for Ironclad warship is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 20:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War categorization

I'm trying to clean up Category:2003 Iraq conflict, but I think the category name itself needs to be changed. It is currently being used for articles relating to both the initial invasion and the ongoing occupation and insurgency. I don't see the point in trying to seperate out the invasion from the occupation, since most articles would fall under both, so I suggest renaming it to Category:Iraq War to match the article Iraq War. Several subcats would have to be renamed also. I thought I would mention it here before bringing it to WP:CFD, in case there are any objections. jwillbur^talk 23:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that officially the US president declared that the war was over several years ago. Wandalstouring 09:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't think anyone would disagree that the conflict is ongoing. jwillbur^talk 17:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I would say that a rename to Category:Iraq War is a sensible option at this point. Carom 17:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I put it up at CFD here. jwillbur^talk 00:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter

I didn't get my May 2007 letter until June 9th. That makes it somewhat late, so if there's anything I can do to help with the newsletter, I'd be glad to do so. --MKnight9989 13:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the newsletter now covers certain events that occur at the end of each month, so it's going to be sent out the next month in any case. In some sense, it's a "newsletter covering May 2007" rather than "newsletter sent in May 2007"; I don't know if there's some way of making that clearer. Kirill Lokshin 17:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No I understand now. Sorry for the ruckus. --MKnight9989 12:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Battle of Cape Esperance now open

The A-Class review for Battle of Cape Esperance is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 17:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

New pictures - help needed

Yesterday, I took a trip to the United States Army Ordnance Museum and took lots of pictures. I brought them back, labeled and uploaded them, and produced User:Raul654/favpics/2007 Ordnance Museum. The last step is to integrate them into existing articles. Any help you guys can provide would be appreciated. And while I'm on the subject, there are still 3 military-history related red links in User:Raul654/favpics/Virginia2006 (Horten Ho III, Horten Ho VI, and Personal flag) Raul654 03:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem, we have articles on almost all of the tanks and guns you photographed. Thank you for taking and posting the pictures. By the way, I've been to that museum before but it was in the middle of winter so it looked a lot different, there was a blanket of snow over everything. Did you get a tour of the "back room" in the museum where they keep all the historic rifles? They have a Sharps Rifle among many other interesting and historic firearms. CLA 06:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't actually go inside the museum ;). For the summer, I'm working full time at the Army Research Lab, which is all of a mile down the street. So getting to the museum and getting pictures is actually a pretty easy thing (except that bringing a camera is a pain in the ass because it means I have to leave the camera in my car, and park outside the secure part of the facility). Note - there are probably another 50 pieces (mostly artillery, but a few tanks) that I didn't photograph because they didn't have an identification plaque. I have a few unidentified pics I can upload if you guys want to try to identify them. Raul654 13:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all - thanks. The pictures are quite nice. I'd like to see more pictures of towed artillery and of rare beasts like Ferdinand, but I guess it's my problem :). As for integration into articles - don't see any problem here.

I'd like to see more information in the desctription section of pictures, at least what is the vehicle/gun/...

Also, I think it would be better to move some of AFV pictures from "Category:Armored fighting vehicles" to appropriate subcategories, and pictures of artillery pieces to "Category:Artillery" or its subcategories.

Also, my knowledge of Japanese armor is limited, but isn't the vehicle labeled here User:Raul654/favpics/2007_Ordnance_Museum as Type 94 Te-Ke actually Type 95 Ha-Go ? And the one labeled Shi-Ki - Type 89 Chi-Ro ? The one labeled as Type 97 Chi-Ha - is indeed Type 97, but the modified variant called Shinhoto Chi-Ha ?

Thanks again. Bukvoed 07:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"I'd like to see more information in the desctription section of pictures, at least what is the vehicle/gun/" - uh, what hasn't been provided?

I took pictures of all the plaques for the tanks to identify them later. The one I labelled as "Shi-Ki" refers to it repeatedly as the "Shiki" (but other than that it's barely legible). I'm fairly sure that one is labeled correctly. Raul654 13:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the type 94, the plaque says:

Japan

Tank, type 94, Chu Sensha

Initial production - 1935

Weight: 8.5 tons

This tank has a 3-man crew with a 37mm gun, and two 7.7mm machine guns. The U.S. Army captured this tank on Attu in the Alutian islands during World War II. Raul654 13:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The plaque for the 97 is barely legible. Here's what it says, as best I can make out:

Japan

Type 97 (medium tank)

Initial production: 1937

Combat weight: 15 tons

This was the best of the Japanese tanks. Many were constructed in Burma (Thailand) and Guadalcanal. The 97 had a crew of 5 and armed with one 47mm main gun and two 7.7mm nachine guns (bow and turrent rear) Raul654 13:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

1)>uh, what hasn't been provided?

What I wanted to say is... Let's take this image page [1]. The page doesn't say what the vehicle is, except the image name... Well, may be it's enough.

2) Type 97 is OK. I just said that the vehicle is the newer variant of Type 97 - so called Shinhoto (means "new turret") Chi-Ha, indeed armed with a 47 mm gun. The original Chi-Ha had a short 57 mm gun. Of cource this piece of info "Many were constructed in Burma (Thailand) and Guadalcanal"... uh... puzzles me.

3) Images labeled "Type 94 Te-Ke" e.g. [2] without any doubt show Type 95 Ha-Go. The plaque also describes something much more similar to Ha-Go (7.5 ton tank with 37 mm gun) the to the Te-Ke (3.5 ton with machine gun armament). However, the plaque calls it Type 94... but not the Te-Ke but Type 94 Chu Sensha (means "medium tank" ?) which according to [3] is a variant of Type 89 Chi-Ro medium (16 t, 57 mm gun)... Interestingly, this Type 94 Chu Sensha is also referred to as "Shiki 94"... Uhm...

4) Images labeled "Type 97 Shi-Ki" e.g. [4], on the other hand, do show Type 89 Chi-Ro. Type 97 Shi-Ki is a command variant of Type 97 Chi-Ha, nothing even remotely similar. Can it be the aforementioned "Type 94 Chu Sensha / Shiki 94" variant of Type 89 Chi-Ro ?

5) I've seen too many mistlabeled exhibits I don't trust these plaques anymore :(. Bukvoed 18:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that two of them are misidentified and have moved them accordingly. Raul654 19:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: See my thread below ("Ordinance pics - follow up") for the additional unlabeled pics. Raul654 19:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

List of countries by size of armed forces

This page is completley unreferenced. none of the numbers of ships,planes, and tanks for any country cites any sources. Plus the info on troop numbers is already on other pages. The page is quite old, and no-one has attempted to reference any of the figures. Do you guys agree the page should be nominated for deletion? Willy turner 19:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You can use Austria's ministry of defence to source most claims(excluding South America) and to some extent the cia factbook to source expenditures. Wandalstouring 07:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A better approach would be to delete it or merge it with List of countries by number of active troops which is fully referenced and seems to cover the same topic. --Nick Dowling 11:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

New Category link needed in WWII American Military Aircraft?

Admitting that I am very green here, but when going through the "War" portal to look up articles on WWII fighter aircraft, I discovered that under Category:World_War_II_American_aircraft there was no listing for fighter aircraft, though trainers, transports and other types of aircraft were listed. I did finally locate what I was looking for through other means, but it seemed to me that a category in this area would be useful. Someone created the category since I mentioned this, but there are no entries in it. I realize that there is a List of U.S. World War II Aircraft., but this contains all of the aircraft, not just fighters. And there are lists dividing US fighter aircraft by decades, but that is not a necessarily intuitive way for searchers to find these aircraft. It seems to me that Category:WWII American fighter aircraft would be a useful cross-reference, which could perhaps be linked to the same Category:U.S. fighter aircraft 1940-1949. If I am wrong, then I am wrong, but since I had trouble finding the planes I was searching for, it occured to me that others might as well. Magysty 20:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I had this discussion with the Aviation project a while back and they wanted to keep it at sorting by decade to synchronize with other, non-military aircraft. Personally, I think we can have both by decade and military period (WWI, WWII, Cold War, Modern). Your best bet would be to take this to the Military aviation task force. Oberiko 12:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A-Class review for Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope now open

The A-Class review for Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 00:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Need Feedback

I was wondering if someone could read the article King Armored Car and tell me what all needs to be done for it to be upgraded to 'start' class. thanks all. --MKnight9989 13:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Its already there, all that need be done is to change the rating in the infobox. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help mate. --MKnight9989 12:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

List of major Eastern Front WWII operations

See here. Maybe somebody could ilink it before I get to it - you can do it easily while reading :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

House demolition

I've just created House demolition as a completely rewritten version of an earlier article (which wasn't one of the WPMILHIST portfolio). Feedback would be welcomed! -- ChrisO 00:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Common world war two infrantry weapons

there is alot of vandalsim on this page and the countries that are currntly lised are finsihed, what should we do about it.(Esskater11 02:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC))