User talk:Kges1901/2016/October

Archives

September 2016 Military History Writers' Contest

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the September 2016 Military History Article Writing Contest with an impressive 119 points from 24 articles. Well done and congratulations, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jdurand

Hi Kges1901,
FYI Jdurand11143 (talk · contribs) recently created this Jdurand page. Anything like Jdurand11143, which you tagged for deletion back on 7 February 2015? 220 of ^Borg 05:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@220 of Borg: I don't know because I don't remember pages I tagged for deletion more than a year ago. However, this looks like an obvious A7 because this is not a notable record.Kges1901 (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, it's now been speedied. 220 of ^Borg 09:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another barnstar

	The Original Barnstar
	For your hard work cleaning up the mess left behind by the IT guys for the Air Force Historical Research Agency when they created all those dead links Lineagegeek --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content
Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at recent works
Op-ed: TomStar81 on the evolution of the tank
Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 14:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting Soviet divisions template

The Soviet divisions template is now too big and cumbersome - and still not half complete - and needs to be split. My thought is before and after 1945, which would allow adding all the Mechanized Corps divisions. Your thoughts? Buckshot06 (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Buckshot06: - Sure, that would be a great idea. However, wouldn't choosing that date result in duplication of dozens of rifle divisions in both templates? I created a before 1945 template. Some questions:

How should we translate пушечная? Should it be "Gun" or "Cannon", as in "8th пушечная Artillery Division".

I don't know how other English speaking armies do it, but in the day the US Army used "Gun" and "Howitzer", so that's 1 point for "Gun" instead of "Cannon". --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glantz uses "gun", so that's what I went with in the template. Kges1901 (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should the unnumbered divisions like the Reboly Direction Division and the Ussuri Tank Division be included?
Finally, the before 1945 template as it is now, without having all the RDs and Cavalry Divisions, is still 34k bytes. Kges1901 (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We may make the date 1957, which is the other alternative. Aviation divisions need their own template. The other thing would be to have a World War II combat-support division template, so artillery, AA etc are separated. Either gun or cannon is fine, but follow Glantz if you can check one of his works; unnumbered division should be included, very much so. Many thanks for your hard work. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Buckshot06: If we make the date 1957 then we will have to include the mechanized divisions, but offsetting that by splitting the combat support divisions would keep the size below 40k bytes. Kges1901 (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may have to make it three templates. Heavens, there were 500+ infantry divisions, not counting second, third, and fourth formations. Yes, 1957 may be the better bet, and we may, after creating bef 1945 and combat-support, create a 1945-57 to handle the issues of overload of the other templates. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Buckshot06: Split the bef 1945 into combat support divs and other divisions. Kges1901 (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Buckshot06: What about divisions with formations that were around both before 1945 and after 1945, like the 50th Rifle Division. Should such articles have both a bef 1945 template and a 1945-1957 template? Should units like the 316th Rifle Division (3rd formation) with a formation existing until 1946 have both templates as well, or would that clutter things? Kges1901 (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Why don't you fiddle with both options, saying using 50th as a test-bed? See what you think. But from now on set all the templates to state=reduced, so they have to be clicked on to be opened. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 91st and templates

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For wikignoming fixes to 91st Rifle Division and 91st Motor Rifle Division - another fine effort!! Also for all your hard work on the templates - doing all the hard work for me, thankyou!! Buckshot06 (talk) 11:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raseiniai

Please proactively remove any dubious citations that you are not sure of; we CANNOT have false citations supporting data from wherever. Should I rollback all of the dubious citations that were newly added? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Buckshot06: That would be a good idea. Kges1901 (talk) 11:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award: Jul to Sep 16

		Military history service award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of four Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period July to September 2016. Thank you for your ongoing support of Wikipedia's reviewing processes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Hello Kges1901. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that there is consensus that we shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created, as you did at ComedyShortsGamer (Deji). It is also suggested that pages that might meet CSD A7 criteria not be tagged for deletion immediately after they are created. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. {MordeKyle} ☢ 21:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MordeKyle: Thanks for the message. I'll remember this in the future. Also, what is the notability criteria for persons solely "notable" for being youtubers? Kges1901 (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Why do you not have one of these yet? EDIT: Turns out this is your third one, heh. Non multa,sed Vicipaedia 07:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]