User talk:Kges1901/2019/September

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

477th Rifle Division

This division turned up in Poirer and Connor/FHO, I believe, and on many sources later. We don't list it now; do you know what the various sources argue about its existence? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• I made a mistake there, not meaning 477th as there as been no proof of its existence in post-Soviet sources. 474th is the highest as that is what can be verified in Goff who actually looked at Soviet records. But I think that the nav template would be ok without including short-lived divisions that are covered at other articles like the 412th RD (became the 24th) and anything above 422. Kges1901 (talk) 11:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Just wondering if we should include a paragraph saying that 477th and any other odd higher ones are attributed in P&C etc but not listed because they haven't been confirmed in post-Soviet publications. Thoughts? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be undue weight to P&C? The point really is that there were gaps and errors in German intelligence data, but that would be expected since analyzing enemy strength generally ends up not being entirely accurate. Kges1901 (talk) 12:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight wouldn't be the issue in my mind; just trying to avoid people coming along later and adding units they read about it in pre-1992 sources.. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I've just never seen that happen in the last few years, though, given the obscurity of the topic. Kges1901 (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Крымско-татарский коллаборационизм во Второй мировой войне

Can you please vote for deletion here? There are some strangely well organized editors who strongly beleive in keeping it, despite there being no article for Kalmyk or Chechen collaboration. I strongly suspect some political interference here.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 68th Mountain Rifle Division

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 68th Mountain Rifle Division you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Kges1901/2019,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
• Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Svobodny (1940)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Soviet destroyer Svobodny (1940) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 68th Mountain Rifle Division

The article 68th Mountain Rifle Division you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:68th Mountain Rifle Division for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Smyshleny (1940)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Soviet destroyer Smyshleny (1940) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Sovershenny (1940)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Soviet destroyer Sovershenny (1940) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 07:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Smyshleny (1940)

The article Soviet destroyer Smyshleny (1940) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Soviet destroyer Smyshleny (1940) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019

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 looks at the legacy of World War II

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) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Svobodny (1940)

The article Soviet destroyer Svobodny (1940) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet destroyer Svobodny (1940) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Sovershenny (1940)

The article Soviet destroyer Sovershenny (1940) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Soviet destroyer Sovershenny (1940) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Smyshleny (1940)

The article Soviet destroyer Smyshleny (1940) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet destroyer Smyshleny (1940) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Sovershenny (1940)

The article Soviet destroyer Sovershenny (1940) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet destroyer Sovershenny (1940) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Reversal of removal of text re 33 RD (II Formation)

The Russian language sources place great emphasis, even splitting articles, on the I, II, III etc formations of various divisions. It is simply not complete of us to not list these formations in the correct numerical place; the article "33rd Rifle Division" needs to, at the *very least* refer to all formations which had that designation, of all numbered formations. We could split if it became too long, but we need to list every formation that existed under that designation - if there are reliable Russian sources, as we seem to believe now with Feskov et al 2013. It's not about the lineage of one particular formation, traced through honorifics, otherwise we could have an entry for "Transbaikal-Dnepr Rifle Division" or some such (in this case, "Холмско-Берлинская Краснознамённая ордена Суворова" Rifle Division), the article title is "33rd Rifle Division", so we need to be all-inclusive.. Hope this explains what I've done. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• My rationale for removing the mention of the brief 1955-1956 reusage of the designation is that the primary topic of the 33rd Rifle Division article should be the 1923-1945 unit, which saw combat service under that designation and has mentions in English RS sources (because this is en wiki, most readers will likely be searching for the WWII unit, not the brief 1955-56 formation with a mention in Crofoot & Avanzini, a self-published book that is long out of print). With the hatnote, the 1955-1956 unit is still mentioned and readers that may be looking for it are directed to the 215th RD article, which contains the combat history of that unit. Kges1901 (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Therefore, where we disagree is that I would say the '33rd Rifle Division [Soviet Union]' article, to do the whole subject justice, needs to cover in the text and in the infobox, however briefly, all formations which have existed under that title (not just focusing on the 1923-45 formation). No problem with most details being somewhere else (like for the 215th) but without one or two lines, the history is simply not complete. Thoughts Wreck Smurfy? Buckshot06 (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• I agree. This came up recently with the article for the 417th RD. Kges1901 was good enough to add info in the Postwar section from Feskov on its 2nd formation in 1953-55 which I was unaware of. So I added the dates of the 2nd Formation to the header of the infobox, the active dates, and a sentence at the end of the intro. This division was renamed the 78th RD in 1955, which is mentioned in the Postwar section of that division's article. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• On this question, we have to consider what defines a separate formation. The Soviet General Staff's perecheni generally start a new formation for each rifle division after the division ceases to exist as an organized unit or is converted into another unit (ex guards conversions). For example, the officially declared disbandment of a division destroyed in the encirclement battles of 1941-1942 is the end of one formation. If a division is converted into a Guards unit then its history is continued by the Guards unit and the number is re-used for a unit that really has no connection with the unit that first used the number other than the number. This system is essentially based on organizational continuity - consider, for example, the 11th Rifle Division, which had to have suffered very heavy losses in 1941 given its positioning, yet its headquarters survived and so the 11th RD has only one formation during WWII. Conversely, the 24th Rifle Division ceased to exist as an organized unit and so the second formation had no connection until the NKO made it so. So the divisions reduced to brigades and re-expanded into divisions do not count as separate formations because of the organizational continuity, and therefore sources (really only Feskov et al 2013) do not refer to these as second formations.

However, I don't think we necessarily should by default split articles on different formations as ruwiki does because that would not work for units like the 396th Rifle Division, where both formations have relatively short histories. However, I think some deserve to be explicitly split between formations, such as the 161st Rifle Division, where 161st RD (I) can easily be covered as the predecessor to the 4th GRD and the 161st RD (II) as that of the Ukrainian 161st Mechanized Brigade. I also would prefer for that units renumbered in 1955 get the detailed mention at the division that they represent the organizational continuity of and the one-line hatnote on the article for the designation that they briefly held. My reasoning for this is that a couple-line mention of the 33rd (former 215th) on the 33rd RD's article would be out of place after I expand the 33rd RD article to address the most important formation in detail (which I plan to do down the road). Apologies for the long response, but I have thought much about this subject. Kges1901 (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Soviet destroyer dab moves

I just got a query as to why a bunch of Soviet destroyer which were launched in '39 had their disambiguators moved to 1940. Your comment says something about avoiding an anachronism; can you expand that so we can understand what you were trying to do?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• For example, saying Soobrazitelny (1939) would be anachronistic because Soobrazitelny was only renamed in 1940. Kges1901 (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Coordinator stars
		On behalf of the members of WikiProject Military history, in recognition of your election to the position of Coordinator, I take great pleasure in presenting you with the Coordinator's stars, and wish you the best luck in the coming year! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 07:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Soobrazitelny (1940)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Soviet destroyer Soobrazitelny (1940) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Soobrazitelny (1940)

The article Soviet destroyer Soobrazitelny (1940) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Soviet destroyer Soobrazitelny (1940) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)