User talk:Kges1901/2016/March
Better english expression
[edit]Hi! Because you are the native english speaker I'd like to ask you how properly describe the situation when one army broke through the enemy's defense and then the fresh tank army is used to exploit the success. In the article Bratislava–Brno Offensive I used the words "Tank Army was deployed into the breach" but it seems that such expression is not in use at all. Thanks in advance. --Honzula (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Honzula: It should read something like: "The 53rd Army launched the attack east of Brno, advancing towards Šlapanice and Slavkov. The army's advance broke through German lines and the 6th Guards Tank Army advanced through the gap." Kges1901 (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have to keep in mind that while the plain translation into German is possible (to some extent) it simply doesnt work in case of English :-) I found out now that the article Deep operation uses words similar to you. Thank you for help. --Honzula (talk) 10:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Should you wish, you could use your previous words 'exploit success' or exploit the success - something like that, which gives some of the sense of breakthru/deep separating of tasking. That wording works in English just fine. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have to keep in mind that while the plain translation into German is possible (to some extent) it simply doesnt work in case of English :-) I found out now that the article Deep operation uses words similar to you. Thank you for help. --Honzula (talk) 10:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
108 Guards Air Assault Regiment
[edit]You may not be aware that I created the 7 Gv VDD article from an upgrade of a pre-existing article on 108 Regt. This original text may have some useful bits for you. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks
[edit]Just wanted to drop a line to thank you for your continuing hard work on Soviet/Russian HSUs and formations. It is and will be appreciated. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Buckshot06 - Shouldn't the List of Soviet Army Divisions 1989-91 be updated to show present day status (it mostly already is)? I don't see the purpose in a list showing the status of units 10 years ago. Kges1901 (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Have you reviewed WP:RECENTISM? Both myself in 2006, and possibly, from what you are saying, you, now, were getting too attached to trying to do things up-to-the-minute instead of relying on unambiguous WP:Reliable Sources. If we can find an unambiguous update of status for each unit, that could be added, but we might not find one coherent list. We might have to retitle the column '21st Century Update' and have each entry saying something like 2005: disbanded [ref], and the next one down, because we only have 2001, '2001 still in existence [ref]'. What do you think? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Honestly I suggest, for the 1989-91 list article, that we concentrated on adding extra, high-quality sources, for the well-established divisions, than just copying out of Holm re divisions that cannot be independently confirmed. There are enough links to Holm that people can see to click through. Better to search out and add other academic journal-level-quality sources (you will see from SOURCES that these are highest quality sources, according to WP). But thanks as always for your energy!! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Have you reviewed WP:RECENTISM? Both myself in 2006, and possibly, from what you are saying, you, now, were getting too attached to trying to do things up-to-the-minute instead of relying on unambiguous WP:Reliable Sources. If we can find an unambiguous update of status for each unit, that could be added, but we might not find one coherent list. We might have to retitle the column '21st Century Update' and have each entry saying something like 2005: disbanded [ref], and the next one down, because we only have 2001, '2001 still in existence [ref]'. What do you think? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Buckshot06: - Couldn't these mobilization divisions be listed in Feskov 2013 and Lensky? Kges1901 (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- If we can source them from Feskov 2013 and Lensky I and II, sure. But unfortunately Holm's website is technically a WP:SPS, and, thus, technically, we shouldn't rely on it too much. Please take a few minutes to read WP:SPS. And as Holm himself says, there is more to come and errors are still possible. Thus, please *do not* create actual articles about mobilisation divisions that only Holm lists. I'm in the middle of trying to wipe all references to Feskov 2004 across the entire site!! Don't want to have to do this again!! Please stick to divisions that have at least two other reliable sources attesting them, in addition to Holm. What happens with divisions that are formed later is one can find (much later) that they are linked to divisions that were formed earlier, like the 46th Rocket Division. So in general it's better to start with divisions from the beginning, and with most sources - unless you want to take the responsibility for corrections for the rest of your life, and updating 'current' for the rest of your life. Best to use exact dates. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
February 2016 Military History Writers' Contest
[edit]
|
The WikiChevrons | |
| On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the February 2016 Military History Article Writing Contest with an incredible 117 points from 23 articles. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC) |
OOBs
[edit]Thaks Kges, I haven't done an OOB before so all assistance gratefully received.Keith-264 (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Georgy Rodin
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Georgy Rodin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. NottNott talk|contrib 11:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Rodin people
[edit]Hi, I noticed you added several entries to Rodin (surname) that don't match WP:DABRL, but then I also noticed that you started creating those articles, one of which I now linked from Alexey Rodin. Do you intend to create them all soon, or can we prune those that are less prospective? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC) @Joy - I will create the military biographical articles soon. Kges1901 (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| For writing fine biography articles in such a number that they put their respective surname article in a whole new light. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC) |
@Joy - Thanks for the barnstar. Kges1901 (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016
[edit]
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Original Barnstar |
| For finding the information to link the 240th Anti-Aircraft Regiment with the 131st Rocket Brigade - great research!! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC) |
Given its involvement in the Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 shootdown, this formation/unit is actually higher priority that any of the theatre rocket/missile units at the moment. If you get some time... Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)