User talk:Kges1901/2019/February

Archives

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Silny

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Soviet destroyer Silny 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 L293D -- L293D (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Soviet destroyer Silny

The article Soviet destroyer Silny you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Soviet destroyer Silny 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 L293D -- L293D (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 2 Squadron RCAF

The article No. 2 Squadron RCAF you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No. 2 Squadron RCAF 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Nice article! Please consider submitting it to the 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada (submission link). You can embolden the title on the list since it's a GA! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

I'm not exactly welcome on Peacemaker's Talk page, so I'm responding here. In re: this, I don't believe that you've ever posted to WikiProject Germany. I've gotten responses there directly as well as comments on various discussions that I linked there. Not all noticeboards are as active as MILHIST.

On the topic of votestacking, MILHIST does come across as a non-neutral canvassing board at times. For example, during the ARBGWE Request for Arbitration, the page was linked at MILHIST. This resulted in a strong showing by MILHIST coordinators, including one who referenced "Inquisition", "Salem witch trials", the "Great Purge", "Night of the Long Knives", and "Nazi book burnings", and complained about "the insertion of war crime allegations (regardless of accuracy) disrupt[ing] the chronicle" (source). So not exactly a non-partial editor pool when it comes to how war crimes should be portrayed in the articles on military figures. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I notified another project and two template talk pages. You seem to be saying that editors can't post neutral notices on MILHIST or involve MILHIST in pertinent discussions because you don't like the outcome when people with different views to yours get involved. For someone who is always banging on about local consensus, you sure don't like community discussions. Or perhaps you do, but only when you get to select who is involved. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• This was not the point I was trying to make with this post: Selective notification. My point was that MILHIST was notified, while Wikiproject Germany and Italy were not. Also, being rude is not "robust conversation": . K.e.coffman (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• K.e.coffman, MILHIST members are not exactly monolithic in terms of opinions, so notifying MILHIST is not selective notification. I stand by my statement that WP Germany and Italy are relatively inactive, and it is possible that you may have misunderstood by message – I did not mean to imply that I had posted on WP Germany's tank, but rather that messages there are not generally responded to, as shown by lack of discussion on their talk. I am aware of the discussions in the GWE case, having read them while it was open, and as a coord myself, I must disagree with your generalization about implied negative impacts of participation of MILHIST coordinators in discussions. Kges1901 (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry I was unclear. I meant to say that I have posted to Wikiproject Germany in the past and would not describe it as inactive. I've gotten responses directly to my posts there as well as reactions / posts to the discussions I linked. It's simply not as active with the back-and-forth discussions as MILHIST is. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• K.e.coffman. You turned up on my talk page, wrongly accusing me of selective notification and demanding that I notify WikiProjects of your choosing. It is you who were being rude. You could have just notified those WikiProjects and told me you had done that. That would have addressed your concerns and I would have been aware of them without your accusations and demands. I feel uncomfortable about conducting this conversation on Kges' page, so if you wish to discuss it further, I suggest you make use of my talk page where the thread was actually started and your posts can be seen in context. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Peacemaker, you've come to this page and responded to me directly: You seem to be saying that editors can't post neutral ... ; and now you complaining about a bit of "robust conversation"? If you wish to discuss further, you are welcome to discuss on my Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIV, February 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: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Japanese battleship Mikasa

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) 12:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

252nd Rifle Division

Wow. You were busy on this. Thanks for your help, because I was frankly getting a bit bogged down on it. I've put in a note on your request for reassessment. I still have more to add from other sources, including Glantz's "Red Storm" and a couple of Soviet General Staff studies. I agree with your removal of the quote for Beltsy (it's ambiguous and Russian Wikipedia does not include it) but I also plan to re-include the quote for Bratislava. I use these in part to break up the wall of text and make the pages more readable. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've found the division's historical form on Pamyat Naroda along with its combat journals and a history of its combat path written during the war, as well as maps pertaining to its actions during battles from Stalingrad onward. We can use these sources to fill in the gaps in secondary sources and to enable the creation of maps to break up the text. Perhaps we can get the 252nd to Good article status or higher? Kges1901 (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

60th Rifle Corps

• Happy to help you both with this as required. Kges1901, I note you've found the historical form for the 60th Rifle Corps, including at least one brigade personnel strength figure. Are you able to extract c.1946 personnel strength figures for all the corps' formations? If so, please write them out somewhere and I will set up a stub article for the corps... Buckshot06 (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, every single infantry brigade has the same figure listed - 2,010. Now the 60th is more complex because the 60th Rifle Corps whose form is on Pamyat Naroda is the wartime 23rd Rifle Corps, as I noted in the 252nd article. The 23rd was renumbered as the 60th in February 1946 per the historical form - this isn't mentioned in Feskov et al 2013. The wartime (1943–45) 60th Red Banner Rifle Corps, per BSSA, ended the war with the 2nd Guards Army, and according to Feskov et al 2013 in one section was disbanded in November 1945 in the Smolensk MD. I haven't found anything to verify the disbandment of the wartime 60th as stated in Feskov et al 2013, though, but logically the wartime 60th should have been disbanded before another unit was renumbered with the same number. On the other hand, in a different section of his book Feskov writes that a 60th RC matching the description of the wartime formation in terms of honorifics went to the Don MD with the wartime 60th's divisions and was disbanded in June 1948 there - both the historical form and Feskov cannot be correct at the same time. Feskov claims that the 23rd RC was disbanded in May 1946, which would be incorrect according to the historical form. Another interesting thing is that the number '60th' may have been skipped when forming the 1939 rifle corps, as in June 1941 there is no 60th RC in the BSSA. In his 2001 book on the Red Army in the Great Patriotic War Feskov notes that the 60th number was notional and instead its space was taken by an airborne corps headquarters soldat.ru. Kges1901 (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• I may have been able to find a clue to the puzzle of the two 60th's: the 60th (former 23rd) RC historical form mentions that when the renumbering occurred, the corps HQ support units such as its communications battalion were renumbered. Specifically, the commo battalion went from the 359th to the 988th; 988th was the number of the wartime 60th's commo battalion according to the perechen. This is pure speculation on my part, but the Soviets may have done a US Army-style reflagging with the corps. Kges1901 (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
• Furthermore, I found a historical form of the wartime 60th RC, which notes that by December 1945 it was transferred to the Stavropol MD with hq at Pyatigorsk with its wartime divisions. So Feskov wasn't entirely wrong. Interestingly, said historical form was forwarded to higher headquarters by an officer of the 60th Bratislava Red Banner Rifle Corps - the 60th that was formerly the 23rd - in late February 1946, around the time that the 23rd was renumbered according to its historical form. Kges1901 (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much Kges!! Please amend and re-source my scratch article for the corps as required. Yes, our Rifle corps (Soviet Union) article lists 60 ck as containing three airborne brigades in June 1941, and quickly redesignated the 4th Airborne Corps on June 23. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Please also note Michael Holm has an entry for 23 ck at http://www.ww2.dk/new/army/corps/23sk.htm - from your information it seems to contain serious errors. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

42 Gv TD

Thank you for your e-mails. Stub now in place at 42nd Guards Tank Division; also FYI @ Wreck Smurfy for anything you wish to add to 42nd Guards Rifle Division. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)