User talk:Mrg3105

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mrg3105 (talk | contribs) at 05:20, 27 December 2007 (→‎Russian Imperail Army: not aware). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

I may not respond to you quickly enough as I am downloading a 12 volume reference work one page at a time for the next few days!


Hello, Mrg3105, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Thanks for the numerous edits you have contributed already. I am not familiar with the subject matter at War, so I can't really comment on that aspect, but from what I can see, your well-written edits are more than welcome. Just a bit of advice, concerning your edits at Clash, Wikipedia generally does not list dictionary definitions at disambiguation pages. Not a big deal, I'm sure you'll pick up these conventions as you go. Also, when editing, if you enter a short (few words) summary of changes in the "Edit Summary" box beneath where you enter the actual edits, it would be much appreciated. This just helps people keep track of things from the "History" and "Recent Changes" pages, etc. If you need any more help, don't hesitate to reply or leave a message on my talk page. Once again, thanks for the contributions and welcome to Wikipedia! -postglock 02:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kinburn (1787)

Thanks for your article. It is very informative. We need more entries like this one. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Entex

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Entex, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.handheldmuseum.com/Entex/index.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 05:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Entex==

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Entex, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 05:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy deletion of Hans Jordan

A tag has been placed on Hans Jordan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pumpmeup 09:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy deletion of Walter Weiss

A tag has been placed on Walter Weiss 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 indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Your comments

Hi Mrg3105. Thanks for you comments here. Believe me, I don't feel in any way "pumped" or special by tagging articles. I'm sorry if you feel this way. What I do is try to ensure Wikipedia stays legal and doesn't violate copyright holder's rights off when tagging pages as such. However in this case I may be in error, though another administrator also thought that the article was an unreasonable copyright violation. Nonetheless I invite you to re-create the aforementioned articles, utilizing the service statistics, etc provided the majority of the text is your creation. Things like what they may have accomplished in service, etc will make it less likely someone similar to myself will feel the article is unsuitable for Wikipedia. I'm sorry if I've offended you or caused you hassle. Cheers, Pumpmeup 10:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I always try to assume good faith, maybe something you need to consider. I appreciate the fact there is often mounds of red tape around many things in Wikipedia, and I sympathize with many of the points you've raised. By all means, ignore all the rules and make Wikipedia a better place, your contributions may not always be recognized positively but are appreciated and valuable. Happy editing :-) Pumpmeup 10:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These things happen. Most of the time people like us that try to deal with the flood of ne'er do wells that want a cheap thrill out of Wikipedia or a pushing an agenda are worn down by the onslaught of such edits. Occasionally when someone such as yourself makes an honest attempt to add valuable information to the project imperfectly, we mindlessly trash their contributions - it's bound to happen and it's always good when editors raise the point instead of taking quiet offense to it and never contributing again. The whole article building process is never helped by the fact we often have too many maintainers of the "structure" and too few actual contributors. I'm glad we've not come to loggerheads and I hope you continue making valuable contributions well into the future. Regards, Pumpmeup 11:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole idea of a Wikipedian community is that we're all equals. Stuff like that is unlikely to become policy, but anyone can propose it to become a policy. It will likely just remain an essay. Pumpmeup 11:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Army's tactics in World War II

Noticed your really good improvements to the Red Army tactics in WW2. Would you mind adding some references to them - which books you got the material out of, with footnotes? (Wikipedia:Footnotes#How to use). Otherwise it's very difficult to be sure of how good the information is, and it will be difficult to rate the article higher. If you need help, I'd gladly help you with how to put in footnotes. Thanks very much, and happy holidays! Buckshot06 (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try. I have to get some books out of storage, and it will take time since I wasn't even working on that article to start with.--Mrg3105 (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Saw your note at V Corps (United Kingdom) talk about no article for British First Army etc. Nobody usually says however, that there were 50-odd Soviet armies, at least 100 Soviet corps, and maybe 300+ Soviet divisions without articles!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckshot06 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You asked how to contact the creator of a page - specifically the German 18th Inf Div. If you click the 'history' button at the top of the article page, you'll be able to see all the editors that have worked on that page since it was created - including the page creator. Hope that helps, Buckshot06 (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Buckshot06. I'm determined to resist trying to learn about Wikipedia navigation and markup nad stay focused on writing/editing. As a result I screwed up my user page when trying to insert a sandbox. Its not that I'm technologically incompetent. I just have too much to read as it is. I take your point on the British Army, and the Soviet one. My other project is assisting with translation of the complete OOB for the Red Army for WW2. Yes, all 36 volumes of it. I am well aware of the magnitude of the task, and so I'm also trying to find a way to solve this using technology. Currently it stands at about AU$300 in software. After that is under way, I hope to substantially enlarge the entries in Wikipedia :) I'm also a member of the Australian part of RUSI (NSW branch), so can contribute to Australian and Commonwealth Military History.--Mrg3105 (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're determined not to learn about markup, please at least put your sources in the text (Book X, page Y) otherwise I keep have to insert {{sources}} all over the place and people will have to hunt for sources years later. The complete OOB? Do you mean BSSA - if so, please say so, and we can cite it - I assume you mean the www.tashv.nm.ru site, which I'm using myself at places like Russian 102nd Military Base. If you wanting to insert redlinks for formations, please check out Army (Soviet Army) and Divisions of the Soviet Union 1917-1945 where everything is master-linked, as best user:W. B. Wilson and I can. The convention we're using is 29th Army (Soviet Union) per WP:MILHIST guidelines, and for divisions 5th Rifle Division (Soviet Union).

Great thought also on listing all the campaign Soviet style - if there's a central listing somewhere, that would mean we can take stock and see which ones don't have articles, as well as being able to link every written-about campaign/operation with the units that took part that already have articles. Tell me what you want me to do and I'll pitch in - but please PLEASE note your sources as you go, otherwise FA-quality articles take so much longer. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buckshot06 I am heeding your advice, but to kep it moving I will keep myself to only two Soviet sources for now, ok. People can talk about it and dispute later. The important thing is to create at a good pace--Mrg3105 (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buckshot06. Are you not translating some of the Russian stuff? The TO&E for the 102 MB is all in Russian. Do you want it in English?--Mrg3105 (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's me being lazy. My ability to transliterate Russian is limited, and I give the main lines without doing all of it. 6 gage - no. Try No. 1 Squadron RAAF's callsign - but I'm a Kiwi.
Ah, well, I should know but I didn't about RAAF. I do know there are quite a few Kiwis flying in the RAAF though. At least we are moderately in the same time zone :o) If you need translating I can help, but right now somewhat overloaded --Mrg3105 (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Buckshot06 (6 gage?!). Please read my comments in the Barbarossa discussion. I appreciate the importance of sources and references, but I think it is far more important to define and create a stable article structure first. My thinking is that a house is built by first digging a hole (a bit f destruction), and then erecting a frame (seemingly nothing there), and only after that does all the important stuff go in. Sources and references are really the detail work that much of the editing is concerned with in the same way interior decorating works (except in Wikipedia its incessant!). I would like to first define the article structure which IMHO currently sucks. I would like help, because a) this is really my first attempt at a significant article, and b) two heads are better then one, and the more the merrier :) Seriously though, I would like to talk to others and see what they think before doing 'major surgery'. There is much 'fat' there that can be taken to other articles (so I see others gradually getting involved as they discover bits of Barbarossa offered for 'adoption' over time :) I'm not sure why, but some of the German commanders and one Soviet are not linking properly although I added the 'von' and checked they are there (confused!). I also though that the Soviet Armies had separate article links from your lists, but apparently not.

I'm working from the scans I got from the www.pobeda.com.ru (I think). Craig Crofoot is already several documents into the thing, and did the Fronts and Front HQs.
here is what he says:
Gentlemen,

I am going to describe what is available on the Internet as far as the order of battle of the Soviet Armed Forces goes. This is a general summary and not specific details. If there are specific details that you know about, please let me know.

1) In the 1985 Robert Poirer and Albert Conner wrote ‘The Red Army Order of Battle in the Great Patriotic War”(Presidio Press) which for the first time dealt with the unit histories of major Red Army combat formations (its still available through amazon.com [1]). Although general in make-up and based primarily on the German Army’s Fremde Heeres Ost records, it did provide something. In the 1990’s the authors attempted to have published a second edition, but due to its size and the publishers unwillingness to have two volumes, this was dropped (per telephone call with Mr. Conner). Given the fact of the huge amount of information now available from Russia, I would consider this severly dated material and would recommend acquiring a copy of the book only as a collector’s item.

2) From 1995 to 1998, Charles Sharp wrote and had published through The Nafziger Collection (http://home.fuse.net/nafziger/WW2_ARMY.HTM) a 12 volume series detailing the unit histories of the ground formations of the Soviet Army and NKVD during the war. Portions of them were based on Poirer and Conner’s book, some on the original German FHO records, but then a new source was mentioned. It was the official order of battle of the Soviet Army as published by the Soviet Ministry of Defense from 1956 to 1990. It was relatively unknown until the early 1990s because the Ministry of Defense had classified all of them SECRET. The problem with them is they only detail the combat forces and not the support forces. Eastview Publishing originally was the sole source of them, but in my opinion because of the high price they were charging, several Russians were upset and began obtaining copies of them through their own sources and put them out on the Internet. Igor Ivlev at soldat.ru used the version put out by the Russian Ministry of Defense to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the war, but this was poorly done since the Ministry only put out 1 for each quarter. Two other sites put their versions out, one in PDF and the other in html (see below for links). In my opinion, download both and compare.
3) Approximately 5-6 years ago, word began seeping out of the Russian Federation that there was a much larger series of books detailing not only the combat units, but also the combat support and combat service support units of the Army, Navy, Air Force (including Long-Range Aviation) and PVO forces. They were initially called for those that did not know them ‘Perechins” (Russian for ‘Lists”). About 3 years ago, I was able to obtain a list of the books (initially being 36 of them). They were described to me as being a list of all the formations and units of that type that were in the Operational Army during the Great Patriotic War. For the Eastern Front, this covered the period from 22 June 1941 to 11 May 1945 and against the Japanese from 9 August 1945 to 3 September 1945, with one additional volume that covered the battles with the Japanese in the late 1930s, invasion of Poland in 1939, and the Soviet-Finnish war in 1939-40. Over the last years, only bits and pieces came out, such as the Tank and Motorized Divisions, the low numbered Rifle Divisions. My initially plan was to hire someone in Russia to see if the can obtain scanned copies of them so I can translate them and put them on the Internet. Well, that all changed on 24 August 2007.

4) On 24 August, through his source, Igor Ivlev posted on his soldat.ru website scans of most (one is missing) of these Lists. I have posted links to them below. Although you do not need anything special to download them, you will need WinRaR to extract the files and Djvu (from lizardtech.com) to view them. It seems that they are appendices to General Staff Directives (which still remain restricted) showing every formation, unit, sub-unit, establishments and institutions in the Soviet Armed Forces and NKVD in the Operational Army during the war. The first one was published in 1956 and the last in 1973. But it didn’t stop there. It seems the General Staff continuously modified this list, changing dates of inclusion, adding units or subtracting units. This was done from 1970 up to 1989 in the USSR and at least two after its fall, one in 1996 and one in 1998. Except for the last two, most of these have been penned into the books. The word I have heard, and no official explanation has been given, is that these were done for the veterans when they collect their pensions. It seems they receive a double count for each day thy served in the OA. For example, if a veteran served 45 days in the OA, he would be credited for serving 90 days. I am currently in the process of translating them into English and Below you will see the translations of the titles, the numerical order they were published and the links to the soldat.ru website for downloading. In addition, I am providing the status of the translations (myself doing the original translation, Michael Avanzini proof-reading and Alex Vasetsky doing final proof-reading and posting it on his web site).

Appendix No. 2 to General Staff Directive No. D-043 of 18 July 1970 (List No.1: Field Headquarters of Main Command Directions, Fronts, Groups of Forces and organs of Fleet Headquarters, included in the composition of the Operational Army in the years of the Great Patriotic War 1941 – 1945) [10 pages] List No. 1 (360 KB) Translation status: Completed; on Internet (http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/formation/Perechen/01_Directions_Fronts.xls)

Appendix No. 3 to General Staff Directive No. D-043 of 18 July 1970 (List No. 2: Headquarters of Combined Arms, Tank, Air and Sapper Armies, PVO Armies, Military Districts and organs of Flotilla Headquarters, included in the composition of the Operational Army in the years of the Great Patriotic War 1941 – 1945) [20 pages] List No. 2 (716 KB) Translation status: Completed; on Internet (http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/formation/Perechen/01_Directions_Fronts.xls)

Appendix to General Staff Directive No. 168780 of 18 June 1956 (List No. 3: Field Headquarters, Main Commands, Headquarters of Operational Groups, Defensive Regions, Fortified Regions, and Aviation Base Regions, included in the composition of the Operational Army in the years of the Great Patriotic War 1941 – 1945) [92 pages] List No. 3 (4.031 MB) Translation status: Scheduled to be completed April 2008

User page issue

Hello. Regarding your message [2] at WT:UTM, while I am not entirely sure what you are looking for, if you put {{db-userreq}} at the top of your "vandalized" user page, an admin will probably come along and delete it for you. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Ok, thank you, I'll try it. Just don't want to do more damage then already done :)--Mrg3105 (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Nope, that tagged it for speedy deletion!!!--Mrg3105 (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill 04:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]



Operation Barbarossa

I would be glad to help you with improving Operation Barbarossa to FA status. Admittedly, I have never brought an article up to GA class let alone FA class, but I will do what I can to help. Captain panda 13:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for accepting the invitation Captain Panda. Do you think we can do it by tomorrow? ;) Just kidding, this is a project that will take some time, and I think that aiming for high quality doesn't hurt. I have never taken an article to that level either, and in fact I'm a relative beginner in Wikipedia, but I know that this is a job for a team effort even if I was an expert.
I would appreciate if you read my comments on structure in the discussion there and of course would appreciate feedback. I have a copy of the article on my home PC which I'm using because I destroyed my user page when I tried to install a sandbox.
My proposed approach is to define the purpose of the article first, and then create a whole-article approach structure rather then write sequentially. I strongly argue that the article should be about the OKH operation and exclude everything else, including Soviet preparedness, decisions and reactions. They will be in articles that will cover Soviet WW2 operations, the structure for which I'm working on now.
The Soviet part which is usually lumped into Barbarossa is known is Soviet historiography as the Summer-autumn campaign of 1941 (22 June - 4 of December), and is in turn composed of 13 strategic and 52 operational level distinct operations. The reason I would like to 'untangle' this form a single Barbarossa 'lump' approach is because I'm also committed to a long term off-Wiki project of translating the entire Red Army OOB which is a first since the end of WW2 that will give an unprecedented view of detail in this theatre.
Eventually I hope the Eastern Front would be divided into eight theatre periods (and one Far East theatre period each with its own set of strategic and operational articles on distinct operations.--Mrg3105 (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Mrg3105, I'm not very well read on the operations of 1941 but I have a strong interest in Second World War force structures and orders of battle. I'd be happy to contribute to OOB research or perhaps contribute some brief text on the force development of the Red Army under the stress of invasion. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, in that case like myself you will probably learn much in the process :) It seems to me that I have learned more then I ever hoped to know in the past 20 odd years :) I think somewhere in the Staff College symposium notes I remember someone saying that there are no experts on the Eastern Front, only those willing to admit they were wrong in their past assumptions :)--Mrg3105 (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to help if I can, but unfortunately I won't be very active until early-January. However, I'll try to contribute as much as I can. I would say that the referencing sector needs attention and lot of work. Best regards, --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eurocopter. Thank you. I may be out of action from second mid-January for a couple of months actually so that would be good timing. My broad objectives are to add pages on the operations that took place during the Operation Barbarossa (wile redoing that Article) from Soviet perspective. To start with I will only use two Soviet sources for referencing. with time people will come and add where appropriate and chat (hopefully and without EW). I'd also like to help Buckshot06 in his research because it dovetails with my own, and of course Bagration is interesting. seems to me I'll be busy for the next few years :o)

Discontinuous editing

I have added some more information and citation details on the film editing technique and removed the part on Wikipedia, which was unsourced, and apparently original research.I don't think the contention that it has been encountered by many Wikipedians makes it any less original research. It might be more appropriate in a different namespace.--Boson (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Boson, That was the entire reason for its creation! The principle and effect of the phenomena is the same although one application is to a visual senses and the other to a cognitive one. Can you not understand that? It would be impossible to document the phenomena otherwise since it is not encountered anywhere else outside of Wikipedia. I am undoing it, and I would like a third opinion.--Mrg3105 (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem understanding that, but if it is a new phenomenon that nobody else has written about yet, that would make it original research. There's nothing wrong with that but, in my opinion, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (at least not in the article namespace). If you want to write an essay about the subject, I think you could write about it in the user namespace, as a sub-page. I'm not too sure of the best place to discuss such things, but you could try Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). If you refer to the article you created, too, perhaps someone can also give you a third opinion on the general appropriateness of such content. You may want to read the policy. Here is an extract:

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

You also asked, on my talk page, for suggestions on how to source such a new phenomenon. You could look at Wikipedia:Press coverage and Wikipedia:Wikipedia in academic studies to see if anything suitable is cited.--Boson (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Boson, thanks for advice. I'll try those places.--Mrg3105 (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Soviet POWs

I actually wrote Extermination of Soviet prisoners of war by Nazi Germany, but it's kinda stub-bish. Feel free to add anything you like. --HanzoHattori (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The Article is in Russian (a child looks for traces of her father's disappearance during the war). I would have to translate, but unfortunately as you probably know there is only so much anyone can do. I'm committed to the rewrite of the Operation Barbarossa article, and when I come across any material on Soviet POW treatment, as I'm sure I will, I will certainly keep your article in mind and will contribute towards its expansion and Wikipediation as far as I'm able. I appreciate your research and contribution on the subjects. Puts a very human, or maybe I should say inhuman, face on war that all too many people treat with historical detachment or maybe fascination for technology and prominent personalities.--Mrg3105 (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it lacks for example a section of death marches (from the frontline to the German rear) and the immediate massacres by the German combat troops. --HanzoHattori (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I meant massacres of the Soviet troops who surrendered. I did the article on the Soviet POWs because I thought it was totally overlooked (while much was said on a minor issues like the treatment of German homosexuals or Jehova Witnesses by the Nazi authorities) and claimed millions of lives. I don't do everything related to the WWII crimes. --HanzoHattori (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Also "no prisoners" orders. --HanzoHattori (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Consistency - state names

There are a couple of distinct issues in your comments, and I'm not sure which one you're actually looking for a solution to; so I'll try to comment on all of them:

One matter is the choice of correct state names. Certainly, "Russia" is not an appropriate substitute for the Soviet Union. The matter of Germany is a bit more subtle; in my experience, "Germany" is generally viewed as an acceptable short form of "German Reich" (cf. "France" versus "French Republic"), particularly as both go to "German" in the adjective form. If I recall correctly, there was some discussion about "Germany" versus "Nazi Germany", with the idea of using links of the form [[Nazi Germany|Germany]] being preferred; but that seems more of a stylistic point.

Another is the use of shorthand state names to refer to the combined militaries of those states. For example, we might write that "Soviet troops captured the city" or "German troops captured the city" rather than "Red Army and VVS troops captured the city" or "Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, and Waffen-SS troops captured the city". I view this as a matter of style; giving the full collection of services in a combined-arms force on every mention would make the text unreadable, so I see nothing wrong with using the shorthand versions after the actual composition of the forces involved has been given.

Yet another is the use of ideological or political terms. I would think that wording like "the Nazis invaded" or "the Soviets invaded" ought to be avoided in formal writing regardless (although the latter form is a somewhat popular shorthand for "the Soviet forces invaded"). As far as I know, though, this isn't too much of an issue in practice.

More generally, if you're looking to establish common conventions on terminology, the best place to have such a discussion would be at WT:WWII. Kirill 22:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are several issues as you point out, and in university I was taught to call things their proper names. I know you are also a historian, and know that there are many Germanies, and the Austrians resented all of them :o) Given the number of German speaking Austrians that served in the Wehrmacht, never mind other nationalities, it seems to me that historical pedantry is called for if only to educate the reader. The problem I have with services is that the Soviet OOBs state which units and Services participated in a given operation. I can not say that the 16 Air Army was part of the Red Army since it was not. As it stands now the VVS doesn't even have a page of its own! After all you don't see the RAF lumped with the British Army? Again an issue of consistency.--Mrg3105 (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

How do I approach discussion in the WT:WWII? Do I just post to the discussion page?--Mrg3105 (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. If you know of other active editors that would be interested in the matter, you can also leave them notes inviting them to take part in the discussion; it'll probably increase participation, since not everyone may have the task force page watchlisted. Kirill 22:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply

First of all, the meeting's purpose (the meeting itself being one sided decission of Hitler - he had not been asked by Finnish to come and "say hello" to Marshal Mannerheim) was not to make plans with Germany on how to "take out Leningrad". That the Finnish unit which was eventually created was involved in clashes agains't Leningrad's supply route is irrelevant. The unit's purpose was to patrol waters of Lake Ladoga, which was strategically important area of water for Finnish because of it flanked both Karelian Istmush and East Karelia, not to attack agains't Leningrad. Neither was Finland in an "alliance with Nazis". The fact that the unit was involved in clashes agains't Soviet forces supplying Leningrad by Lake Ladoga is and was already noted in the article with references - there is no right to talk about Finnish alliance with "Nazis" and include Finland in the box. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Kurt, I didn't ask for your POV on what Finland's intentions were. I asked if the meeting to which the article referred took place or not since you deleted the reference to it. Also, are you saying that Finland did not have a formal alliance with German Reich during WWII?--Mrg3105 (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my "PoV". "I asked if the meeting to which the article referred took place or not since you deleted the reference to it." It did, as I already said - and the meeting itself is irrelevant, especially since the user who added information regarding it did not use the references he listed for it - he copied them from elsewhere in the article to mix something the references are relevant with something they are not. Information regarding the unit was already noted in the article and still is. If you would read the article carefully you would see this yourself. "Also, are you saying that Finland did not have a formal alliance with German Reich during WWII?" Yes, there was no alliance with Germany and Finland. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You may in that case add a source to substantiate the statement that Finnish forces did not participate in the siege such as The Siege of Leningrad by Leon Goure--Mrg3105 (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not have to do that - the article does not claim such and did not claim such until someone decided to do some "intriguing" edits. I can and will add plenty of sources which do state clearly the common fact that Finland did not take part in the Siege of Leningrad - if need arises. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me the need is there now! If the article is ambiguous about Finnish Army's participation in the siege, then it needs to be made clear and referenced--Mrg3105 (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Finnish Army did not take part in the siege - it does not claim so currently and neither it did before certain edits. I shall make nessecary arrangements if need arises - refering to possible edit conflict with certain user (not you). --Kurt Leyman (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I just think its a point worth making. Someone less informed can easily assume that Finland due to its proximity and taking the offensive with the Wehrmacht troops DID participate in the siege. BTW, the Wehrmacht part should stay because that is what they were IMHO --Mrg3105 (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I see little reasoning behind writing "Wehrmacht" under Germany (would be the same if we would be talking about any other country - and its military). That is not something rare in Wikipedia battle articles. As for Finland's involvement in the siege; Finnish Army did not siege the city; there was no shelling or attacks agains't the city. Finnish troops were only tens of kilometers from Leningrad (with Germans closing in from the East) when Marshal Mannerheim ordered the advance to be stopped at Finland's old borders. Leningrad was within range of artillery from Finland's border - yet there was no shelling nor attacks; Finnish did not seek to attack Leningrad.

The small Finnish naval forces on Lake Ladoga were involved in clashes agains't Leningrad supply route on the lake - which should come as no suprise since it was to patrol its waters. The Italian naval unit on the other hand had been specifically tasked for attacking agains't Leningrad (although the Italian unit did not exist for long - its few vessels were turned over to Finnish by the end of 1942 - the vessels being used to strenghten Finland's small navy). --Kurt Leyman (talk) 01:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You know, I don't really want to argue with you. The trouble is that this is an open edit encyclopaedia, and this means that the next time someone decided to write Finland into the siege, you will have to undo again, and and again, etc.

As for Wehrmacht, you are right. It should say Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine, as well as Waffen-SS. Its a point of factual accuracy and not common sloppiness of using the easies common term. As producers/editors of historical information we should be more quality-mined then the reader who may be a just a school kid doing homework. The school kid will have no idea which part of Germany was at the siege. In fact he will go to Germany and it will take a long time to reach Wehrmacht through History of Germany, History of Germany in WWII, etc. So why not save the time and just say what it is supposed to say, that Wehrmacht troops were conducting the siege with support of the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine?--Mrg3105 (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Abbreviating Fronts

Let me teach you a trick- 'piping' links. If you want the Soviet Western Front, as simply WF, you do it like this for the normal [[Soviet Western Front]] but for the abbreviation - [[Soviet Western Front|Western Front]] or even [[Soviet Western Front|WF]] and it shows up like this WF. Understandable? Pretty easy once you try it a couple of times. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean that you have already created all the abbreviations for the fronts so I just need to pipe them?--Mrg3105 (talk) 04:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
PS, I also owe you big time :o) If you don't mind, I 'borrowed your tables from the Soviet divisions to reuse for the operations. --Mrg3105 (talk) 04:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
No, you have to copy the code out, as above, every time you wish to abbreviate the Front names (or the division or Army names, for that matter, eg. Soviet [[6th Army (Soviet Union)|6th]], [[11th Army (Soviet Union)|11th]], and [[13th Army (Soviet Union)|13th]] Armies. , will produce Soviet 6th, 11th, and 13th Armies. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
This is going to take a loooooong time! I'll just do it as I go, rather then trying to add all the fronts and Armies first if that's ok with you. I'm bored out of my mind downloading a 12 volume Soviet set on WW2, and its like a timewarp! I only did two volumes in two days, and they re the pre war times when innocent and peace loving USSR was going to be set upon by the warmongering imperialists as it tried to defend the downtroden and enslaved proletariat of the World like the Mongols :o)--Mrg3105 (talk) 05:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't ask questions in archive talkpages. Noone will see them. Add a new question to the bottom of the current talkpage. Also, we have already 4th, 5th and a bunch of other Air Armies. Check the template at the bottom of Army (Soviet Army) to see what articles are done or not. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Please read the Russian Ground Forces and associated pages, including Category:Divisions of the Soviet Union more closely. We have a good article for the 10th Guards Ural-Lvov Div already, at 10th Guards Uralsko-Lvovskaya Tank Division Buckshot06 (talk) 09:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm a little confused. Do I need to say that I was trying to help, but when I looked on the Russian Ground Forces article and say it was not linked, I decided that there wasn't a page for it. To make sure I searched the Soviet 10th Guards Tank Division, and there wasn't one. The title you used is not correct for either the WW2 Tank Corps, or the current tank division, so why use the extended but incorrect title for the division instead of the operational designation and add the extended honorific in the article? I'm sorry to mess it up, but I was following your earlier examples. In any case, in future I will look more extensively as you suggest or just post the info to your talk.--Mrg3105 (talk) 09:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't create the article, and if I had I probably would have done it at '10th Guards Tank Division'. Just be sure to check the category Category:Divisions of the Soviet Union before you start, because we have various units there, listed under WW2 names, Soviet era names, and in some cases, thanks to enthusiastic Ukrainian contributer user:Ceriy, modern Ukrainian names. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I really prefer a though through consistent approach so this Wikipedia thing is driving me nutz. This is why I'm taking my time and checking things out before I start creating more content for the operations article because it will link to so many things (obviously). Can you fix the 10th Guards Tank? I only happened on it because I found a great quote by Malinovsky, and it cam up in the search, so wanting to help I checked on the Russian division page and seeing its not linked thought "why don't I help Buckshot06"...ah good intentions :o)

Ok, I'm going back to downloading the volumes of WW2 history from Soviet POV. Its going to be my one-source-fits-all in the initial page creation so the pages don't come with "add sources and references" tags (hate those).--Mrg3105 (talk) 09:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer of help. The most help at the moment would be translating the odd bits of Russian that I've left untranslated in many articles, like in 13th Army (Soviet Union) and 6th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) - thanks for the assist at Divisions of the Soviet Union 1917-1945 by the way. We are also missing an article on 3rd Shock Army, yet there is a Ru-wiki article at ru:3-я ударная армия. If you wanted to translate the key bits of that and set up the article, that'd be good. Your campaigns/battles page will be a great help when it is up and running, so that is a help in itself. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
the Ru site for the 3rd Shock has a huge table with the operations just like I wanted to do, but obviously for the one Army! Do you have plans for something like this?--Mrg3105 (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
No. One of the reasons I hadn't (ineptly) machine-translated the Ru-3rd Shock Army page was that huge table. If you wanted to translate it as text, that would probably fit better with most of the other articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
A couple of points: To create a new article you simple put [[3rd Shock Army]] , click on the redlink and start writing. Secondly, if you take a look at the overall Red Army page, you'll see there is already several pages linked from there about Russian military ranks - don't create any new pages there before you're absolutely sure there is not a specific page for the period and branch you're after. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I promise that I will look more following the 10GTD experience, but the Red Army article covers the ranks kin two sections. There is substantially more to it then that although I will only be concerned with the higher level officers for my purpose and I know there is a separate article on Marshals, although incomplete. I was actually looking in the History of Russian military ranks article where the section is inexplicably empty.--Mrg3105 (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Only one problem. The convention now is [[3rd Army (Soviet Union)]] not [[Soviet 3rd Army]]. This because the name of the formation isn't 'Soviet 3rd Army' it's simply '3rd Army'. Please do not put in any further unit names like that - I'll simply have to change them back. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Marshals

My mistake Mrg. However 'affirmed' is not very clear. Do you mean nothing substantially changed, and the rank continued in use. In that case a better wording might be ' on the recommendation of Voroshilov, the continued use of the Mrank of MSU was agreed upon, and reaffirmed in Red Army standing orders/decrees whatever.' Sound better ? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Simple then. Put what you've just told me in talk into the article, to explain and make easier to understand the use of 'affirmed' in that context. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I forgot to save the edits again and now the new section and marshals have disappeared and I have no idea why because you only revised the wording, right?--Mrg3105 (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've been the only editor since you at this moment, but again, click that history tag at the top when you're reading the article and you'll be able to see the edit history yourself. I've just checked, and your words 'to name a few' remain. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't know what happened. In nayy case it was not a good idea because almost everything I added was redlinking. I have saved the Marshals files at home and will write up more substantial articles for creation. I will also put the Marshals of troop Arms and Services on the to do list. So much to do and so little time. What did I used to do before Internet?! --Mrg3105 (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi Mrg, I realise there is something you could help me with - specifically (a) take a look at my {image} flag presentation ceremony cleaned-up machine translation of 59th Guards Rifle Division, and (b) ask at the soldat.ru forums whether they are happy for machine-translated copies of their discussion to be used as the basis of En-wikipedia articles. That'd be really helpful if you could do that. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've added 59th to the to do list. I will also ask on the forum. However, I had not realised that forum information required permission. Also working on the 3rd Shock Army (I need lots of diversions :o))--Mrg3105 (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I started doing 59th it struck me that I will probably be doing this again whether when helping you, or form my own purposes, and not just with divisions.

What I would like to propose is a bit more structure like there is in the US entries.

Formation/unit number - Guards status - Arm or Service - name and honorifics

{images} guards badge orders [link] to in the name of

{image} flag presentation ceremony == Formation == (box?)
{image city crest} where available Place
date
{image} where available Command
Notes: eg. volunteers, ethnic, sailors, workers, 2nd formation, NKVD etc.

{rank image} shoulder boards Commanders (by date)
{command post image} Chiefs of Staff (by date)

{Arm or Service image} template == Component units ==

{image} {Lenin template} == Civil War ==
{image} template of operation map (like on the Project template) === Combat history ===
(by year/campaign/operation/battle/city liberation)
{image} city/ province/region or country crest

{Stalin image} == Between World Wars ==
=== Combat history ===
(by decade/campaign/operation/battle/city liberation)
{image} BT-7 or I-16

== World War Two ==
{image} patriotic poster === Combat history ===
{template} of operation map (like on the Project template) (by year/campaign/operation/battle/city liberation + narrative where appropriate)
{template} create a template for year with image of prominent event, e.g. 37' NKVD 1937
{template} 38' Lake Khasan 1938
{template} 39' Winter War 1939
{template} 40' T-34 1940
{template} 41' Moscow 1941
{template} 42' Stalingrad 1942
{template} 43' Kursk 1943
{template} 44' Bagration 1944
{template} 45' Berlin 1945
{template} 46' nuclear mushroom cloud 1946

== Cold War history ==
(by decade/dislocation/campaign/operation/battle)
{images} prominent Soviet events like Sputnik, etc

== Russian Federation service ==
{images} Yeltzin, Putin etc. (narrative)

== Order of Battle ==
{image} modern Arm of Service badges template for each subunit

=== Table of Equipment ===
{image} prominent equipment

== Sources and references ==

With having this I can just reuse it and with smaller sections its easier to add information as it becomes available. What do you think? All the images can be readily obtained from Wikipedia I think. I'm not saying to drop everything and do this, but just to work towards this as an article FA presentation goal
--Mrg3105 (talk) 12:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


No plans to work on a 3rd Shock Army article. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Battle of Smolensk (2nd)

The top rating is properly the province of WP:FAC and WP:FAR; our tagging of the articles as FAs merely mirrors that. If the article is deficient, it'll get reviewed and demoted eventually; but that's a decision the community as a whole makes, not each individual project. Kirill 15:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: More categories?

Category:Military railways ← is that what you had in mind? Kirill 15:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you create that or did I miss it? I could swear it wasn't there before.--Mrg3105 (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Just created it; you didn't miss anything. ;-) Kirill 23:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I didn't expect such quick service because I now realise how much work you do for the Project. Can only Project coordinators create categories?--Mrg3105 (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Nope, any editor can; it works pretty much the same way as creating an article. Kirill 00:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I have only looked for categories and not how to create them because I don't want to duplicate where alternatives exist, not being so familiar with the military categories yet.--Mrg3105 (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Russian Imperail Army

Please take another look at this category - you've misspelt 'Imperial' in the category. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You are fast!!! Nothing gets past you ;o) I just fixed it.
In any case, I am somewhat dumbfounded here.Just to be on the safe side, I wanted to have a look at the syntax used for the Russian Imperial Army Armies and divisions. Well, there is one, First Army (Russian Empire) from WWI. Of course the first Armies date from the Napoleonic wars, and EVEN in Borodino they are not linked, and now are redlinked by myself! There are no divisions at all! I suppose they would be X Infantry division (Imperial Russia)? --Mrg3105 (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm using [[3]] which works for each user; my one, for example, is [[4]]. Be aware the overall category is Category:Military of Russia, with everything in subcats, like Category:Military of Imperial Russia below that - check the various pages out and you may find something more. I know there are some individual regiments. But there's no Imperial Russian Army article - it's a redirect, which you could start writing if you wish. Finally yes I think your idea of Xth Infantry Division (Imperial Russia) is fine. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually I see it's right there - you quoted it First Army (Russian Empire). So it's (Russian Empire) rather than anything else. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
What I'll do is stick to my original plan which is WW2 operations. Having created the category, I will add it to the regiments so at least the category page is not empty. I can not take on the enormity of the Russian Imperial Army also now. What I meant was that there is only one (1) pre-1917 Russian Army (formation) listed. The syntax is however to spell out the name. However now I see that Mr Wilson also created some Soviet Armies by spelling out the names rather then using numerals?! Can we use consistent syntax of spelled out for Imperial and numbered for Soviet/RF? PS. I always knew I was Special, but the doctors just keep giving me those pills ;o) I get too many notices as it is, so I have no intention of keeping track of you also :o)--Mrg3105 (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
You'll also see that he's just changed First Shock Army to 1st Shock Army. Spelling out for Imperial and numbered for Soviet/RF seems right to me. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, didn't see. I picked one at random from the box at the bottom of Field Armies of Soviet Union. Not going to keep track of other people. BTW, is there a page for KGB? ;O)--Mrg3105 (talk) 02:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware that you're misusing the categories? You add the category tag at the bottom of relevant pages - one never manually edits the category page, except to add a {{main|Russian Imperial Guard}} - a category main article - at the top or other such. Are you sure you don't want me to convert that page to an article? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, was NOT aware. This is the first one I did really so I thought there should be an explanation of the category. I can make a new article, but not ready now. I will remove the text and add the Error: no page names specified (help).. Also inadvertently I added to the military districts froma page where I was not loged in so the addition may be scanned for vandalism?--Mrg3105 (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mrg3105&oldid=180375165"