User talk:Mrg3105/Archive 6

Thanks for your message with above heading on 29Feb - haven't seen messages for a while. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Let me explain the principle I'm working by. In both the land forces located in Ukraine in 1991 and with Pakistan in 1947, there was no change to the actual HQs, units etc on the ground. Their higher HQs and allegiances changed over the top of them, and later change occurred to them; but not at the time. 7th Division, located in what became Pakistan, did not disband. It stayed in existence, as the text you quote says: "By August 1947, the 7th Division (located in Rawalpindi with two brigades) was the Pakistan Army's only division." The question of official tracing which formation is entitled to the lineages of which preexisting formation when the country changed we can debate - I don't know the answers. But the records says the previous Indian Army formations did not disband and have personnel and equipment dispersed - they stayed in existence. They just woke up on the morning of 16 August and found themselves reporting to a new capital. Again, I take your point on official lineages - they're debatable, but my point is that the formations did not disband and reform -they continued. This is to a great degree about definitions, so I wanted to make clear what precisely I have been meaning. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your point, is your POV! In this case I suppose you have a source that says the British Army did not disband the 7th Indian Infantry Division? If you fail to supply this source, I expect you to revert my edits. If you refuse to supply one, I will contact British Army Archives for your benefit. English being the official language of Pakistan, you can also get the official word from them.

I will get to Ukrainian units later. I'd love to get official confirmation of lineage transfer, because Russian media will have a riot when they find this out, and some people in Kiev will have very red faces.

Yes, Wikipedia can make a difference and educate the World...mostly how not to lie.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying not to use strong language(!) Please, I'm trying to make myself understood. I'm not worried about lineages, as I said. When you contact the British Army archives, ask them also what's their record of what happened at HQ 7 Div on 16 August 1947 at Rawalphindi. My understandin from the sentence above you found was, about that time, it probably lost one of its three brigades, as it had only two brigades. But the Div HQ didn't cease to exist, did it? Your opinion is that it could not transfer its lineage, and when you talk to the Br Army archives/Pak Army, whoever, you may find yourself right, sure! But the Div HQ continued in service into the new Pakistan Army, did it not? Can you find a source saying the Div HQ disbanded, then was reformed a day afterwards in the same place? Regards - and best wishes with your archive search; also might be good to talk to Ravi Rikhye, but I don't hear from him very often now. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't mind if you use strong language as long as its sourced ;o)

I hear from Ravi occasionally.

The HQ 7 Indian Infantry Div ceased to exist. See here [1] on departure of its British units, and here [2] on status of British officers employed on contract. You can also consult the Sections 11 and 12 here [3] for the actual removal of His Majesty's authority under the (British) Army Act.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Of course the British units left - the division lost a brigade, though 7 Div is not mentioned in either of your references. But the Div HQ stayed in existence - whether it formally changed its name or not (and nowhere have you cited anything that said 'HQ 7 Ind Inf Div disbanded'). Let's try and be clear on this - you say that the lineage could not be inherited. Quite possible. But the people, (the GOC of the Pakistan Army remained a British officer, so I see no reason why the division GOC would have changed, but I don't know) buildings, furniture etc of Div HQ remained under the title 7 Division, though the army in which they served changed. That is the only point I'm making. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bucksot06, break, break, break...give me a break!!! The question is: What nation did the unit known to history as 7th Indian Infantry Division belong to? What happened to the desks and empty filing cabinets of its HQ is of no consequence. How many newly independent Pakistanis served in the HQ? Maybe 10% of the junior officers and NCOs. However, even this is of no consequences. The division, according to the Act of Parliament of United Kingdom, no longer fell under the authority of the Army Act, and therefore itself. The King could no longer appoint its commanding officer to the said HQ, or even order the said furniture changed. Stationary had to be changed also. The physical division may have been transferred, but the 'spiritual' division went with its British personnel to Far East, or UK, or Malaya. After 1947 the unit in question did not exist in the British Army. It did not exist in the Pakistani Army either (Period)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The GOC and hundreds of other British officers and some NCOs remained on contract to Pakistan's Army, not in commission of King George VI. They could not over-ride an Act of Parliament to keep a British unit in the field while the King already declared it outside of his authority (the Act covred all forces) as this would constitute mutiny.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good. It's clear that we're discussing two different things. You're talking about what you just called 'spiritual'. I don't know about what happened to the 'spiritual' division and for that you may be right (I'm not sure where you'd get a authoritative answer through - lots of seeing various historical officials in MOD Main Building or in New Delhi, maybe.) As I've repeatedly said, I'm talking about the 'physical' division - it seems it retained a British commander, an MG Loftus-Tottenham. As I said at the very start, we only have to define our terms correctly, and the disagreement disappears. Cheers (and how are you going on finding sources for the Sov 8th Army, by the way?) Buckshot06 (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Surely you do not suggest the division retained its lineage based on equipment and a contract British officer?

For the 82nd time, I'm not arguing over lineage! The ONLY thing I say is that the physical division HQ, offices, commander, personnel etc didn't change.

Does the Pakistani division also claim campaign history and awards? Are you saying the article should be 7th Indian Infantry Division (Pakistan)?

I don't know - ask them. As for the article name, of course not!!

Ok, replace 'spiritual' with administrative. Although British officers and NCOs remained, as did the British way of doing things, the authority and administration of the Pakistani Army changed. Along with it changed the name of the division to 7th Infantry Division of Pakistan's National Army. You may be interested to know that the first Israeli units were numbered after US, British and Soviet units depending on were the commanding officers came from, although that eventually changed to a different, and even less comprehensible for most military historians system which is unique.

Indeed, things slowly did change, no doubt. However I've never seen any sources anywhere which seem to be certain on titles. Do the Pakistani Army today use the term 'Infantry Division' or just 'Division' (and by the way, I've never heard of 'Pakistan National Army). Anyway, glad we sorted that out.

I need to finish an article on the Shyaulyay operation first, and then fix up the Bagramyan article a bit. Then back to the missing 1941 Armies without which I can't do border operations. You can just leave unreferenced templates for now if you like.

What unreferenced templates? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

As the articles build up, so will sources.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

So why on earth did you undo my edits on disbandment of the British Indian Army?!!!!

I gather then that you support retention of the article with a move to 7th Indian Infantry Division (United Kingdom)?

Pakistan uses division only for infantry I think, and Armoured Division for tanks. I'm busy reinstalling MS Office now, so can't look it up.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Because they physically split - as the footnote I inserted would tell you. The units were physically partitioned - as we've just established above. I've never said anything about what name the article should have apart from what I earlier said at the AfD (everything in the existing two articles should be at 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan) with a redirect from 7th Indian Infantry Division). PS when I open your talk page it says it's 209 K - you may want to archive. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, what happened physically is immaterial. If you have read anything about the partition, you will know what went on there. The fact is that all British Army units in India were disbanded, finished, ended, no more, ok? So why the redirect?! The two units had nothing in common other then assets. However, if a typewriter from 213 field battery artillery unit was used, does that make the HQ 7 Pakistani div 0.01% 213 field artillery also? These were just things. All that needs to be done is add it to 7th Infantry Division disambig list if its not there already.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

You see, that's the difference in opinion between us. I believe since 7 Div existed before and after 15 Aug 47 with no physical change, it inherits the history - physically on the ground, they were not 'disbanded, finished, ended, no more, ok' - they continued in the service of their new armies - 7 Div on the Pakistani side and all the divs that went to India on the other. You believe that physical situation is immaterial, and go on the nationstates' whole armies' history. Fair enough other point of view. By the way, you do not seem to have read my edit summary - that revert is for the point of a balanced discussion - people can see what it was originally. After the AfD no doubt it will change in accordance with the AfD decision. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have not read the edit summary.

I do not express my points of view here. Everything I say is true. Any military unit in the world can only be created by an internationally recognised national state authority. If it is not, it has the status of mercenary. Its basic international military law. I don't know one instance where there was a transfer of formations and units from one independent state to another (well, I do know one, which confirms the rule about exceptions). Equipment transfers happen all the time. You are working on Turkish Army. How many German brigades and US divisions does it have?

Every time you start a sentence with "I believe..." I skip to next sentence. What you believe is between you and God. I'm not interested (for the purpose of Wikipedia).

Within three years all physical vestiges of the British unit were gone except insignia which was retained because it could not be produced locally, and cost too much to have it made overseas. US insignia was used throughout the post-WWII World for decades due to existing wartime stock. US equipment completely replaced everything by the time the last British officer left. Maybe it came from the US 7th Infantry Division. Maybe the 77th ID. Are you going to change designation again? Its just nonsense. Did the RNZAF retain squadron designation when it purchased Australian A-4s? Please don't reply unless you have some hard, sourced facts. I had enough for one week with Jassy-Kishinev tank you very much --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have to say Mrg I'm repeatedly annoyed by how simply rude and ill-mannered you are (Can't do me the courtesy of reading what I say?). As I said, I disagree with you. The division insignia remained the same, and as Ceriy and I say in the case of Ukraine, we believe the history continues. I'm sure you understand what I'm saying, and I doubt you disagee about what actually happened between 13-18 August 1947 at 7 Div HQ in Rawalphindi. As you put it, it's about 'physically' versus 'spiritually'. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't rude, I just have no stomach for intellectual dishonesty.

Wat happened is that a British division was disbanded and its assets and some personnel were uused to create divisions of newly independent states. Same thing that happened in Ukraine.

If you base unit lineage on unit insignia while ignoring at least three Acts of Parliament, then I have nothing else to say to you.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

For god's sake man - I've admitted that there may be no lineage link, and you've said nothing may have physically changed those few days at 7 Div HQ, and you call that 'intellectual dishonesty'? What is dishonest? I do not understand. As for the Acts, I've just taken a look at Wikisource on the 1947 Indian Independence Act, and there's nothing in the text about disbandment of formations. Please tell me the clause and I'll take another look... Buckshot06 (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

===> Hello you 2 co-editors :) - I am an absoulute Wiki-newbie - the first thing i have learned was to go in my sandbox - this discussion is longer than the article - what a waste of time - cool down and have a nice day --Dan Wesson (talk) 06:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You've actually now made 3 reverts on Fourteenth Army (United Kingdom) now. Can you leave the links in place until discussion is complete please? Leithp 10:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mrg3105, my reluctance to join the discussion was mainly because of other demands on my time. I looked the discussion over and thought it best to not get involved as this week was quite busy. As to your question, no, I'm not in the U.K. I'll always consider a research request as long as it isn't a large amount of work so feel free to ask. That said, if the research requires access to W.O. archives, then I'm not the best positioned for that kind of work. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you might be interested to know that I've now created the Vilnius Offensive Operation article and have substantially updated the existing article on the East Pomeranian Offensive with a lot more information (I realise that this was in fact a strategic offensive containing several more limited operations, but need to do a bit more work in this regard). Anyway, I hope these help with the GPW project.

My next task will be to do something with the "Silesian Offensives" article, which is little more than a stub (as well as being incorrectly titled) and expand the Vistula-Oder Offensive....Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 08:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I haven't noticed. Just got home. I have the German OOB by Hogg, so might see what I can add--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

From your comments on the Talk:British Divisions in World War II I think you have little understanding of just how important regimental history is to Commonwealth armies. The disadvantages of deployment is considered more than outweighed by the fighting cohesion it brings to the men in a regiment. This difference was highlighted during the Cold War in Berlin, each day American planes arrived and left with men rotating through the units in Berlin while for the British a battalion would arrive and leave together en-mass. From an administrative point of view the American system is much more efficient.

I was going to write more, but the Regiment#Commonwealth army article is a good place to start. I think the article explains why at independence the Indian and Pakistani armies would have wished their inherited regiments to keep their regimental histories, because if they needed to go to war (as it turned out against each other) then given the military tradition they had inherited the regiments needed their histories. For example have you ever wondered why the Gurkha and Gorkha regiments are known as rifle regiments? They are known as rifle regiments because the 60th Rifles fought along side Gurkhas in defence of Hindu Rao's House, and the 60th were so impressed with the Gurkhas they campaigned for them to become a riflemen instead of sepoys. Why a rifle regiment? Because the 60th were a rifle regiment who along with the 95th won great renown during the Napoleonic wars. [4][5][6]

Some of the honours are strange and not intuitive. For example before during and after the Napoleonic wars line regiments were numbered. The older the regiment the lower the number, and at the end of a war the higher numbers were disbanded because the size of the British Army was reduced. So far so good! But the 95th had proved so useful that the Army did not want to disband the regiment, so they took it out of the line and gave them a separate status. So today we have the situation that there is competition between regiments to be top of the list (oldest and most respected) and bottom of the list (elite). Hence at bottom of the infantry list are the Gurkha, Rifles and SAS! (see: British Army order of precedence). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Lir. Thanks. --Editorofthewiki 01:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Спасибо, но поскольку я человек сугубо мирный, вопросы территориального деления занимают меня только в гражданском аспекте :) Однако, ссылка может оказаться интересной участнику Buckshot06, который специализируется как раз по вопросам военных округов. Я передам.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Это не столько вопрос территориального деления, сколько вопрос истории войсковой администрации в России. Buckshot06 не знает Русского, и больше интересуется современностью. Я думаю ему не по силу такое. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Хм, я не знал, что он не знает русского :( Жаль, не хотелось бы пропускать такой источник. Просто дела войсковых администраций меня лично интересуют постольку-поскольку и в основном применительно к организации территорий вообще. В общем, to put it bluntly, не специалист я в военном вопросе...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey Mrg. As I said to Ezhiki, I'll gladly help with minor details, as you wish, if you want to do the main translation, and I can follow up looking for English-language sources. Regards from the other side of the Tasman, Buckshot06 (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Romanization of Ukrainian names is covered by WP:UKR, romanization of Russian names—by WP:RUS. Both guidelines omit apostrophes. We don't use ISO because it does not work well for our purposes. Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have no objection to it being renamed, but Battle of Debrecen should remain as a redirect. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please refer to Talk:Battle of Białystok-Minsk#km or kms.

Tabletop (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

You are correct, but I think you will see at the bottom of the main DSU article where you got the text originally, a full citation - I was using a cut-down cite semi-a-la Harvard.

While I'm doing that, would you mind inserting the <references/> tag at the bottom, after you insert references in the middle of the article, so that people don't have to come after you and do it? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The citation may be fine in the main DSU article, but needs to be added in every article itis used in Sources.

I was under impression that {{reflist}} was sufficient--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but the point would be, you added that cite into the new 80th Division article. References? Either reflist or /references, doesn't matter which, please insert them! I had to do it. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, sorry I thought I did!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

However, there is an existing section of text which can be used as a basis. If/when you're keen to work on that, I'd suggest starting by expanding and adding references to that section of text, until the article size limit tag starts appearing at Division (military)#Infantry, which is where everyone will be looking for it, and then consider creating a new article. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do you know there is not even an article on Arms of Service and Service Corps?!

Ok, I'll do the Red Army if you do these

Officers of O.K.H and O.K.W.

War academy (Kriegsakademie)

veterinary officers and NCOs

veterinary troops

Artillery regiments

mounted artillery units

artillery observation units

artillery training units

artillery observation training units

experimental command Hillersleben

experimental command Kummersdorf

army map and military survey

army group command

general command

infantry divisional staff

infantry regiments

garrison battalion Vienna

machine gun battalions

motorcycle-units

mortar battalions

army AA units

infantry training regiments

staff military Authority of the Reichsprotektor

War college

cavalry units

reconaissance mounted

motorcycle units

light division staff

signals units

fortress signals

signals training regiment

army school of dog and pigeon service

reconnaissance motorized

motorcycle units

general armored commands

armoured division staff

rifle brigade staff

armoured units

anti tank units

armoured trains

motorcycle units

armoured training regiments

army school of motoring

motor maintenance troops

mountain troop divisional staff

rifle and mountaineering units

motorcycle units

armoured infantry units

smoke units

smoke training units

military justice units

medical officers and NCO

medical troops

medical training units

supply officers

transport units

transport training units

transport supply officer

pioneer battalions

fortress pioneers

railway pioneers

pioneer training battalions

railway pioneer training companies

technical officers

armoured engineer companies

recruiting personnel

military police

specialist officers

army propaganda troops

for Wehrmacht Heer ;O)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

PS. I took all the training establishments out for now

Most of these are being done at the individual state level; for example, the Royal New Zealand Corps of Signals and the Jordanian Royal Maintenance Corps (Jordan). See also for example Sri Lanka Army#Regiments. Systematic treatment on branches of service like that is something I've seen in Soviet/Russian sources, but less for English-speaking nations - we tend to focus on the individual corps. But also check things like Military police or artillery (and the War template at Artillery, listing a number of arms of service) - I think you'll find a number of existing articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know they are there. However, I need these for Eastern Front. Its a huge amount of work.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I cannot spare you the discussion Mrg. That huge list simply does not belong in the middle of a textual description of the Red Army - it looks ugly, surely you can see that. With your agreement, I'll split it to a Arms and Services of the Red Army page, where it can be properly developed as soon as someone can find a sourced list of them in WW2 - one of the Colossus series? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Further, on the images, you'll see I carefully inserted a decoration for the Taman Division. What I objected to was inserting them when they appeared to have no direct relevance - even when the formation in question had not been awarded the Red Banner. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

There's a question over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Russian and Soviet military history task force about the Cyrillic abbreviation ~~MOM~~ (This is me trying to render it in Arabic characters) that you might be able to answer. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I myself believe that it was the largest in history, but a citation is needed per Wikipedia: Cite sources and we cannot claim the figure the "largest" simply because there is no larger one available.

The closest it has ever come to: http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/operation_barbarossa.htm

"Barbarossa the largest military attack of World War Two"

But I see no source online for worldwide comparison. 219.79.27.59 (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you look at the numbers, it becomes readily apparent, so I would not think a source is required. Its just an accepted fact. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wikicitation rules clearly state you must source anything that a fellow editor asks for a source for. Please be polite and insert one. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Are you asking, because the other is an IP and not a fellow editor.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Everybody that edits is an editor. If you wish, please consider that every source request from a numbered IP address comes from me. Wikipedia:Cite sources allows nothing less. By the way, are you happy with a separate. linked, page for Arms & Services? There's certainly enough potential for a separate page there. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not happy by either of these--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, even occupied there existed a government in exile. It is usually reffered to the Czechoslovak army forces as from Czechoslovakia or with Czechoslovakian allegiance, remember Ludvik Svoboda's army group. In those days there even France didn't exist, Belgium, Denmark etc ... ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I forgot that the Czechoslovak government was recognised by the USSR, and that there was a Corps serving with the Red Army. In any case, that's fixed now, somewhat. At least the article is there. Do you have a few images to add to it?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Moredn name is Liski, HTH. Cheers, --Irpen 04:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ironically, I went to an old, large atlas to check your addition of Radekhov, thinking you had confused it with Radivlov (Chervonoarmeysk). I found a handmade overlay comparing Budyenny's campaign to the towns mentioned in Red Cavalry (I must have made it in the early '90s). And sure enough, Radekhov and Sokal are marked, strung along the road from Brody to (disaster at) Zamoste. That road has seen more than its share of soldiers. Jd2718 (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

That is interesting. I had trouble finding them first because I didn't have a good map handy, but after I looked it up on a topographical map it was no problem.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Because I'm continually worried at the level of the english you use. I read 'The article informs about' and was, frankly, flabbergasted. Surely you know that it would be 'This article covers..' or 'This article .. whatever, but not 'The article informs'. Maybe in a bibliography 'Subject XYZ.' 'This article informs citizens about the invasion of ..' but even that, frankly, is terribly wooden english. I hate having to criticise you on your english, but you did ask... Buckshot06 (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, this is not a movie script Buckshot06. People read reference works to be informed and not entertained! 'Wooden' is fine as long as it is informative--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad you're not annoyed to see improvements so that a better form of English is used. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Buckshot, why pick on me? There are 64K articles in the MilHist project alone. Do go any see how other articles start, and if you find that I violated some rule after surveying 51% of them I will gladly submit to your better knowledge of English. Frankly though most people looking for information on the subject of the article are unlikely to reject it from the first few words because they may seem 'wooden' to them....you think?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why pick on you? I don't follow Malian military articles, nor those of Paraguay. I follow Sov/Russian ones... and thus I see the errors that are there. For heaven's sake, don't take it personally... I've just corrected some minor english-isms at a South African constitutional article. I'm only trying to improve the encyclopaedia, and I only responded to your query on the subject. I'm quite happy to stop discussing the subject now. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Guys, let's avoid criticizing anyone's English. -Irpen

Mrg, re your question, my best guess is Dnieper Lowland. More at my talk. Cheers, --Irpen 05:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Um sorry to intrude, but I've been following this, and the 'Dniepr Bend' is often used in English language histories of the Eastern Front. From my perspective, it might be better to keep the phrase 'Dniepr Bend,' but just define it clearly. Regards to all Buckshot06 (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sure, the Lowland is more of a name from Physical Geography (as this course was called in school) or even, perhaps, Geology. Not my cup of tea although I had top grades in school :). --Irpen 08:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think when it gets written, it may need a redirect because as Buckshot06 points out, the Dniepr Bend is used everywhere in military history sources.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Mrg, good work on adding the official formation dates (and in one case the actual number of the decree) for these two organisations. Can you also indicate a web-link so they're sourced? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I forgot again. I thin it was actually from the RF MoD site, will have a look. Did you notice only two of the three Forces in the current OOB share the date?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, was just about to say, that's great for the 2001 date, but the 1959 date was the one I was looking for a reference for. Did you find anywhere - Ru or Eng - the actual text of the decree? Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 08:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks fro that. I assume it's the list of the ceremonial/celebratory 'Days' for each branch - that's what it look like - correct? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Type and Branch. You know this I think, right? Tip and Rod.

There is a longer list that includes battles and civil professions, but I think you will have too many problems with it--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Mrg. That's nice, but don't spend too much time chasing down decrees if it's not easy. The main thing I was looking for was the site where you got the 1959 date from. Cheers & thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the text Mrg. Maybe I'm not making myself clear. What I wanted was to add a footnote with a web address, as a citation, to the SRF article. So the question is, what is the web address of the webpage you got this from? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Its there!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, just as I was about to say that I'd seen you put it in, you added the two words above, and we had an edit conflict... Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey Mrg, appreciate the work you're doing with article names, but the naming convention for Old Commonwealth aircraft squadrons is (No.) X Squadron (AF abbreviation) - thus No. 75 Squadron RNZAF, or No. 1 Squadron SAAF. As has been repeated many times, the (Country) at the end is only necessary if there are two units with the same name. If you wish to change the policy so that every unit gets the (Country) suffix, it might be better to raise it at WT:MILHIST rather than just doing it without consultation. ..My 2 cents. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

There are a bunch of (sometimes 40-series) Royal Tank Regiment articles. I would say they should all be merged into the main RTR article until they get to more than 2-sentance status. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, no one has done so until now, so why tell me the Soviet Rifle Divisions that are twice the size and are likely to have at least one reference will be deleted?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Right. Sorry. I'm now going to have to seriously argue with you. The Civil War regiments almost never had the word 'Infantry' in their titles. You are now creating non-historical wikinames for the sake of consistency (and we've fought this before and been corrected - ref all the discussions over the name of The Old Guard). Please stop renaming the US civil war regiments until you have a determination from someone who knows about this that these regiments really had the description 'Infantry' in their titles. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, but before I started, I had looked in the category and found that more had the Arm of Service in the title then not. Moreover several historical reenactor groups also use them in the title, and they are usually fairly reliable for accuracy. I have now moved a good dozen or more articles, and not one person had contacted me in the last few days, except yourself. If you feel that I am wrong, please bring it up in the ACW task force talk page--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

In this case its not the country that is the issue. The use of abbreviations in title is not encourages, but spelling out the whole is also counter to the historical practice you pointed out. So, the full and historical use is in the article, but the article title is only that, the article title name for Wikipedia use. Seems to me a fair compromise--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

No. We work on the title of the unit, not what we might want it to be. Stop creating invented titles for units whose traditions you're, with all due respect, not particularly an expert on. Please wait - and discuss with others - until you check with someone who knows. Surely the YAssy-Kishinev experience has taught you the value of standing back and waiting for others' opinions a little? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Better than that, I've just brought it up on the main talk page, because it covers more than the ACW. Would you mind please putting that particular focus of yours on the back-burner while the discussion is underway? Buckshot06 (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Reply