Welcome to Wikipedia, Wreck Smurfy! Thank you for your contributions. I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Your a loser ok just admitt it so shut up and listen, all right.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the Help desk or on the
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
Ranald MacKinnon, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Morier, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Equestrian and Anglo-Swiss (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello! Wreck Smurfy,
you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! JackFrost2121(Frostbitten?/ My Work) 03:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
October 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pavel Batov may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
he participated in the suppression of the [[1956 Hungarian Revolution|1956 Hungarian Revolt]]). He was transferred to command the [[Baltic Military District]] (1958-1959), the [[Southern Group
Thanks Wreck Smurfy. The Red Army editors' group is User:Ryan.opel, myself, and User:W. B. Wilson, who did the bulk of the monumental List of Soviet infantry divisions 1917-57. That list as you will have noticed is mostly Poirer and Connor, thus thoroughly out of date, but better than nothing. Once you've done 354th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) you may wish to consider joining us working on User:Ryan.opel/42nd Army (Soviet Union) and 57th Army (Soviet Union) (from W.B. Wilson). My policy for the last few years has been to focus on armies and divisions, and to leave the rifle corps 'for now'. We have now all but the last sixteen or so regular armies done, so I'm trying to make an effort on those. Would you mind also please kindly redlinking all rifle divisions, artillery divisions, and tank brigades, if you're not already doing so. Warm regards from Aotearoa, Buckshot06(talk)07:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Wreck Smurfy, for both the 354th and the 140th. Any division not with an article is yours to write about!! Just one thing - the [[Category:Infantry divisions of the Soviet Union in the Second World War]] should not be added directly to tank division articles. Instead, add it to the redirect - the 193rd Rifle Division (Soviet Union). Then it won't be out of place in the categories. Cheers and thanks Buckshot06(talk)05:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for February 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 354th Rifle Division (Soviet Union), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belorussian Front (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
By order SV/2014/005q of the Red Army editor's group, I award you with an additional Order of the Red Banner for your contributions to enhancing English-language knowledge of the enormous sacrifice of the Red Army in the Great Patriotic War. Buckshot06(talk)07:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Wreck Smurfy, for both the 284th, 70th Guards, and others! Just one very minor thing - the [[Category:Infantry divisions of the Soviet Union in the Second World War|Category Sort number]] needs to be carefully checked. I've just fixed the 284th, which would have been listed as the 69th.. Cheers and thanks Buckshot06(talk)05:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Easy. Just click on the page '95th Rifle Division', which takes you through to the 75th GRD, and then you will see a bluelink immediately under the title 'Redirected from 95th RD'. Click on that and it takes you to the 95th RD page itself. I've done this for you - 95th Rifle Division - but it may be worth remembering for the future. Brilliant thanks for all your hard work on these divisions !! Buckshot06(talk)02:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 119th Rifle Division, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kalinin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 251st Rifle Division (Soviet Union), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dvina River. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thanks, Buckshot. I've been busy with other projects most of the past year, but I'll keep running with the 300-series rifle divisions so long as the source material holds out. I'll also take the 87th Guards Rifle, based on the 300th Rifle. By all means you can put in those links; however some of the info (such as honorifics) has come from the titles of uncompleted articles (2nd Formation of 300th Rifle, for example).Wreck Smurfy (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - great work!!. Please set up the 301st Rifle Division alternate title links also, in that case, as we should probably have both - there are so many places where a single Sov rifle division could be mentioned, and not everybody puts in (Soviet Union). Buckshot06(talk)09:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that, and it's great. Do you have access to the full Combat composition of the Soviet Army documents that list the order of battle by month? I found them - I'll see if I can refind the links.
Hi WreckSmurfy, great work on 87 Guards Rifle. Can you tell me which Russian wikipedia pages you are using? There needs to be an attribution template on the talkpage to indicate which Ru wikipedia pages have been used. So would be good to sort this out. Cheers and very many thanks again. Buckshot06(talk)20:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good, thanks. Now a couple of things: we cannot cite WP, even Russian WP, we must cite its source. Second, if you're going to openly refer to the Russian WP page (like II Formation, 304th RD) you really need to interwiki it. The code is [[ru:304-я стрелковая дивизия (2-го формирования)]], inserted under the categories at the bottom of the page. If you're having trouble copying the title across without it becoming gibberish, copy and paste the title of the article, not the url. That's the way I do it. Cheers Buckshot06(talk) 02:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Buckshot06(talk)02:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks. That helps a lot. It seems strange to me that the various languages of Wikipedia cannot talk among themselves, that a photo that I take from Russian Wikipedia is not already cleared to general use. But we are all in the early days. A few years down the road it will be standard.
Hey, Buckshot. Entirely agree on moving the prewar section of the 304th to the 109th, although I did a bit of editing to the 109th to make it read a bit more smoothly. The 304th article threw me for a bit of a loop when I realized that Sharp's account was a bit off the rails; the timeline he stated did not make sense during 1943-early 1944, so I drew on the Russian WP source more than I would usually do to try to get an accurate account. This happens with Sharp from time to time; no criticism, it's a huge topic. With a bit of research and common sense it's not hard to recognize, but it does kind of leave us hanging without a reliable English-language source. On the one hand I prefer doing these division histories methodically, one by one. On the other hand, having reliable primary sources, like memoirs, forces us to bounce all around as they become available. For now, I'm shooting for the happy medium.
As for your comment: "just because Charles Sharp doesn't pay too much attention to divisional formations formed prewar doesn't mean they don't exist", I don't think he can be blamed for the fact that I have yet to obtain Vol. 8 of his OoB Series. Seems about time to do so.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff. Now I'll tell you a secret: the reason I concentrate on lower-numbered divisions is that they tend to have been formed multiple times, so if you fully write out the history you cover more divisional formations with a single effort. Should you get tired of working through the 305-upwards series at some point, please consider working on all division that have been formed four times, then all divisions that have been formed three times... I'll see if I can ferret out a list. Buckshot06(talk)04:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. As for a list, Dunn's Stalin's Keys to Victory seems pretty complete. I don't refer to it much because it's organized in an odd way (same reason why Dunn's Soviet Blitzkrieg is awkward). I wrote the 140th Rifle Division a couple of years ago precisely because it was the only division raised four times, so it seemed to cry out for an article. Having said that, the 305th tonight was pretty easy, since in the late war its combat path happened to follow the 304th for the most part. If you keep doing the low-numbered, I'll keep doing the high-numbered, and sometime in the next decade or so we will have this project done. Incidentally, I'm a bit chuffed that with some of my articles, English Wikipedia has more info available on these divisions than Russian Wikipedia. Get on the ball, comrades.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 05:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we'll put that back to sometime in the 2030s :). However, if we could be sure of the reliability of the Ruwiki writing, and sources, we could just translate a lot more, and that would move things along. Do you have/could you get, from Dunn or anywhere else, a list of divisions formed three times? Then they would become my first priorities. Buckshot06(talk)20:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately he has everything arranged chronologically by date of formation. He uses the A, B, C, D code following the division number to indicate 1st, 2nd, 3rd and (in that one case) 4th formation very reliably, so with some digging you could come up with your own list of C-coded divisions. Just glancing at a page at random, I can see that the 3rd Formation of the 87th Rifle Div. took place in Feb., '42 in the Far East and it was assigned to Stalingrad Front in Aug. But that's the only one on that particular table.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's the state of the play, is it? Well, I cannot access 'Stalin's Key's to Victory's tables on gbooks (though I saw the page where he explained the codes), and cannot get through to the Perecheni, so I suppose it comes down to asking you for a favour. Could you sit down when you have some spare time and take a list of the divisions that are listed 'C'? How bit a job would that be? Buckshot06(talk)02:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - much appreciated!!. For the 306th (First Formation), strongly suggest you look at BSSA. Dunn was writing before it became generally available. Just checked 1941 and 1942 and doesn't show up. Need to check the High Numbered Divisions article. Buckshot06(talk)23:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added the 289th-292nd, the 298th, the 307th, and 309th-311th to the template. If you'd like a minor change from the 300 series divisions, do please consider doing the 292nd and 298th.. Cheers Buckshot06(talk)01:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I finished (for the time being) the 307th this evening. If I may say, I find this an inconvenient means of communication. If you wish to contact me directly my email is daveolie@eastlink.com. Please send me yours.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I don't really like to actually write out my e-mail address on the open web (spammers ahoy!!) but go to the left-hand side of my userpage and click via the EmailThisUser function, which you can enable yourself if you like. Buckshot06(talk)19:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Wreck Smurfy. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Disambiguation link notification for October 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 67th Guards Rifle Division, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dvina River. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 50th Army (Soviet Union), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belorussian Front. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thank you for your recent articles, including 309th Rifle Division (Soviet Union), which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here08:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words, Piotr. I'll take a stab at adding the WikiProject Keywords. The Boldin article is obviously a Biography, but an article on a military formation such as 309th Rifles would go under Military History as you have done, correct? To be honest, I've never even looked at the talk page of an article before. Something new, every day. Oh, and I now see someone is way ahead of me on the Boldin article.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the kind words. I have wondered how the DYK section worked, so I appreciate the info. It seems like a whole lot of rules and bother, to be honest. Let me see if I can write a decent hook for the Boldin article: * ... that Ivan Boldin was given command of 50th Army in November, 1941, after his predecessor, Mjr. Gen. A.N. Yermakov, had been arrested and executed for dereliction of duty? There, an "if it bleeds, it leads" hook. I used to work in the newspaper biz.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 50th Army (Soviet Union), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kirov. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Thanks kindly. I redid Oryol Front as well. Hope to have 60th Army done tonight, then I'm going to revise some of my earlier rifle division articles now that I have Sharp's Vols. V, VII and VIII.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted several images from the USSR such as Boldin, which I took from a wargaming website, and Batov, which I imported from Russian Wikipedia two years ago. I got the Fedyuninsky image from Google Images. I've put all these through the uploader and have never been challenged on any of them. If you want to remove the Fedyuninsky image from his article, that is your choice. I will include it in the 54th Army article and if it is challenged, so be it. The only image I've posted that was removed was an original photo I took of a public sign that was judged as original content. Try to figure that one out.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't dream of removing it. I'm going to try and dig up the appropriate copyright/fair use thing for it. The thing I meant to emphasise is that the Troops of Copyright Nazi Designation are very active round here. Buckshot06(talk)06:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up, then. Do I play requests? Sure. The 207th is in Vol. VIII and X of Sharp, with a bit of supporting material in Dunn. I think I'll take a break from 54th Army and put this together tonight. Looks interesting; I've never seen a 1st Formation being abandoned.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should be proud of your hard work that puts English Wikipedia ahead of Russian Wikipedia for this divisions, but the category on English Wikipedia with Soviet World War II divisions has 172 entries in it. The Russian one has 628. While we do the divisions differently, with all formations in the same division, we've got at least 300 divisions to go :(
Well, comrade, if I can keep up my present pace, I'll put a good dent in it. And I'm off work the last two weeks of December. :-) But for right now, I'm getting back to 54th Army.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ryan.opel: Yes, would be great for you to lend a hand. There's a few remaining armies to create, 48th Army needs work, and if you wish to work on divisions, there's a list above of divisions formed three times that could use articles. Merry Christmas!! Buckshot06(talk)21:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll start on that as soon as I have 4th Guards finished. This will be fairly easy since they were both in 31st Guards Rifle Corps from late '43 on.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most welcome, and season's greetings to you as well. Before proceeding to 40th Guards I'm taking care of some unfinished business. I made some additions to 109th Rifle Div. earlier today, and assuming you're OK with it, I'd like to flesh out the GPW history of 161st Rifle Div.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem whatsoever, thankyou. Wherever you're working, please remove V.I. Feskov et al 2004 wherever it is cited as a reference, substitute the data from Holm 2015 (www.ww2.dk/new), and place in Feskov 2004's place Feskov 2013 (second time around and hopefully better!!). Buckshot06(talk)09:46, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Buckshot06. Just so you know, user K.e.coffman has created an article this evening on this topic. It's pretty bare-bones (a Stub, in fact), and also somewhat misleading to my eye. You may want to see what you can do to improve it.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 02:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when you get tired of doing 300-series divisions, that would be my next request. My "ulterior motive" should now be pretty clear: getting the Second World War histories of the divisions that survived through to 1991 or even afterwards. Also filling in the GSFG gaps. Buckshot06(talk)03:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
293rd Rifle Division
Was not sure you were aware that there was a chunk of material at 66 GRD/22 Mech Bde (Ukr). I've moved it into the article; reorganise, delete, reuse, as you will.... Cheers Buckshot06(talk)21:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, yes. Thank you. I'm planning to add info on the original 66th GRD to that page when I finish the 293rd. Some of that material appears inaccurate; neither of my sources (Sharp, Dunn) consider the rebuilding at Buzuluk to be a second formation, and Russian Wikipedia also only shows two formations total.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged. @Kges1901: did a great job on the 2nd Formation today as well. Teamwork!
Last seven divisions (Table 5.21)
First, thanks for 399th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) - much appreciated. Sharp was writing in 2006 when he may not have had full access to BSSA, which we've now got reasonably reliable copies of. Would you mind listing the last seven divisions - better, the last twenty in the extract you spoke of - so we can check them against BSSA? Cheers and thanks Buckshot06(talk)21:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear from you and you are welcome. The reference is actually to Dunn, but I'm assuming that's a typo on your part. Dunn's text states "twenty", but the actual Table 5.21 lists sixteen. The last seven are especially problematic as they show no date assigned or front/army assigned, and the last four show no military district they were formed in. These are: 306A (Moscow); 410 (Moscow); 416A (Volga); 397A; 389; 399A; and 401.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 169th Rifle Division (Soviet Union), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hrushka. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 324th Rifle Division (Soviet Union), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 9th Tank Corps. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hello, Wreck Smurfy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I think you will now see that the article is coming together after my edits today. If you have anything worthwhile to contribute, I will welcome it.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 05:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Military Historian of the Year
The WikiProject Barnstar
For "consistent, solid work on Soviet division histories", I have the honor of presenting you with this WikiProject Barnstar. For the Military history WikiProject, TomStar81 (Talk) 09:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Spaciba, tovarich! This is one I had been planning to get at for a while. The new Glantz book gave me enough material to fill the gaps. I'll go back to the 300-series after this.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 336th Rifle Division (Soviet Union), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belorussian Front. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hey, Trilotat. I've had a look at your draft. First of all, here is the Russian Wikipedia page for Grechkin: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BD,_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87. I understand you can't read Russian (my own skills aren't great but are improving) but you should be able to get dates and unit designations from it, and Google Translate is always useful. Problem is you can't cite directly from it. I have been through my source materials hoping to find a bio on Grechkin, but all I came up with is a short account of him leading 28th Army's attack on the Perekop Isthmus in Oct., 1943 in Forczyk's Where the Iron Crosses Grow. Generals.dk is a great source, but I'd be willing to bet that even if you had access to full Russian records you would not be able to get all those dates lined up because there are gaps and conflicting sources. In my opinion, the chart of appointments that you've made is a bit over-ambitious; I'd never try that myself unless it was so simple as to be pointless, and you'll notice the Russian Wikipedia article doesn't have anything like that, either. I hope this helps.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Sharp is not so sharp on some of those late-war 2nd formations in the Far East. To be fair, that's pretty obscure territory. I will make the appropriate corrections, tovarisch.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do use it quite often (I have it saved as a .pdf) if I need to confirm if a RD was in this or that corps or army on such-and-such date, but I don't often reference it unless it's the only reference I have or if it contradicts an English-language source. And my Russian language skillz are improving by the day... well, by the week, at least.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on your commitments, would you also consider keeping an eye on Zee Money and helping him with his contributions, as you wish, and when you have the time? He seems enthusiastic!! Buckshot06(talk)05:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can have a look. Which leads me to ask, how exactly does one "keep an eye" on another user? I notice that you and Kges at least are always aware when I put up a new page. Is there some sort of message system I'm not aware of?Wreck Smurfy (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You removed my edit which brought back a citation that had been removed earlier. I'm just wondering why that citation shouldn't be there, and why it should be left empty. --Hameltion (talk) 02:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip. It looks like everything I added is still there. First time I've been editing a page while someone else was doing so as well. Threw me off my game. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't planning on doing the 38th because it was one of the Guards divisions formed from airborne corps, so it didn't evolve from a rifle division. I'm finally getting back on track with the 300-series RDs, but I can add what I have in Sharp when I get a chance. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
220th Division
All my data indicates that these divisions were 'Mechanised Divisions' when they were with the Mechanised Corps, not, whatever Sharp may say, 'Motorised Rifle Divisions.' What do you think? Cheers Buckshot06(talk)04:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I translate them as motorized divisions to follow Glantz's translation. Describing them as motor rifle divisions is actually an error found in some Russian sources, however, the expert sources like Drig and thus Glantz, use the term "motorized". The Russian words for motorized, mechanized, and motor rifle are all different. Kges1901 (talk) 08:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I side with Kges on this. The Russian terms are distinct. I think the confusion comes from English-language sources. These divisions had (on paper) a full regiment of tanks alongside two regiments of (on paper) motorized infantry, so fit the post-war Western definition of "mechanized" forces (all units motorized; some on tracks, some on wheels). Wreck Smurfy (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. I think I've redlinked or bluelinked to 1st Romanian in my more recent work. My current plan is to complete the 352nd RD tonight and start the 353rd, then go back and update the 300-series RDs with any new info I have and generally bring them up to current standard, before going back to the rest of the series. I will check to make sure the Romanian links are there when appropriate. Also, Kges (Richard) is suggesting that I write out full names and patronymics of all commanding officers in infoboxes and first mentions in the texts of articles. Please advise if this is necessary, especially as I'm including the fill names of the general officers in the External Links. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion
Please use full names for the greatest possible accuracy when mentioning commanders of divisions in the infobox and on their first mention in the article as you currently use initials in the division articles and the official list of commanders includes full names. Kges1901 (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can do. Back in my university days this would have been called "padding", and it also seems unnecessary with the names being spelled out in the External Links, but if those are the rules, so be it. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for this is because some initial combinations could be common, such as a division commander named "I.I. Ivanov", for example, and that readers will normally read the body of the article first.Kges1901 (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can buy that argument. I'm going to be making revisions to the 300-series divisions I've done so far as soon as I have the 353rd completed, and I'll make these changes. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Wreck Smurfy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thanks, Buckshot. I'm pretty pleased with how this one has shaped up so far. I especially liked being able to quote from Brezhnev's book, which I still have from back in university. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That's a real mess. I have several additional sources, including Glantz's Kharkov 1942, and I could do a major revision, but I'm leery about stepping in where someone seems to have an agenda. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Col. Gen. Pavel Ivanovich Batov in 1945.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Col. Gen. Pavel Ivanovich Batov in 1945.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello, Wreck Smurfy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
We have a problem with your Russian images - like File:Soviet Major General Aleksandr Dmitrievich Berezin.jpg. There is no proper US copyright tag (Russian copyright is irrelevant on en-wiki). I posed a question at c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Advice_on_Image and your statement is correct - at that time the copyright was 5 years but it changed later, and included old images. At URAA (1996) it was 50 years, so any published Russian image pre 1945 would be OK, and would not have it's US copyright renewed. That looks fine so far, and if that is the case then the images could not only stay, but be moved to commons with c:Template:PD-Russia and c:Template:PD-1996 templates. However there is one major issue, in that all these calculations only work when there is evidence of publication at the required date period. If they were unpublished until they hit that web site, then the copyright countdown starts then. Partly due to the Russian poor framing of its copyright laws (meaning all unpublished works retain copyright indefinitely), and the US law, which allows 120 years for unpublished works before they become PD. If you cannot show when they were published, then they may have to go. Ronhjones (Talk)18:46, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On your first point, there are two ways to estimate the dates when these photos were taken. 1). In a few instances the officer died during the war, like File:Soviet_Major_General_Matvei_Alekseevich_Usenko.jpg, which clearly places an upper limit on the date the image was created. In this case it had to have been before May 12, 1943, the day he was killed in action. This is also the case with Berezin, who was killed in action on July 5, 1942. 2). In other instances the date can be estimated from the details of uniform and insignia style. In the case of Berezin, the collar tab badges of rank he's wearing were abolished no later than 1942, as I indicate in the caption. Usenko is also wearing a style of collar tab badges that were not used after 1942. However, this image File:Soviet_Lieutenant_General_David_Markovich_Barinov.jpg clearly dates from the mid-'50s, given the style of tunic (with lapels) and the necktie, and I've indicated this in the caption as well. Creation dates, therefore, can be estimated quite accurately. On your second point, however, I have no way to establish when these images were published. Since they all conform to a set pattern (portrait photo, full uniform, no hat or cap, not candid or casual) I have assumed that they were taken for official purposes, and published at some point or we would not have access to them today. Many, like the image of Berezin, appear to be copies of copies, (even moreso, this one: File:Soviet_Lieutenant_General_Filipp_Yakovlevich_Solovyov.jpg) indicating they were published and then reproduced, perhaps several times over, given the quality of the images. But this is speculation on my part. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
File:Soviet Major General Aleksandr Dmitrievich Berezin.jpg listed for discussion
At the time the image was taken, the museum was no longer in operation. As I understand, it may be reopened, depending on funding. At present, it seems unlikely. In any case, the sign was erected by members of the community, who may or may not have had connection to the museum.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been ongoing since November 26, with no resolution. I would like to respectfully ask for an answer one way or another, so I can go about my work. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Specific Shtat (T/O) for rifle divisions
Hey WreckSmurfy, continuing congrats on all your good work. Might you and Kges1901 now be able to do better than the term 'standard Red Army rifle division', which keeps on popping up in your articles? Do we have the Shtat details, and can we give the specific Shtat it was formed with? We should probably create the redirect Shtat and direct it also to Table of organization and equipment, and add a section there.. Buckshot06(talk)22:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with tracking down the specific Shtat for each division is that the shtat changed several times during the war. For example, according to Zaloga and Ness' Red Army Handbook, the mid-1941 divisions were formed on a new reduced strength Shtat, which was further refined and standardized across all divisions by a different December 1942 shtat. By the end of the war, due to constant attrition, divisions were authorized on several different reduced strength shtats of varying sizes, from 4,000 to 8,000 men. So the shtat would be pretty hard to track for a division that went through the entire war, like the 252nd Rifle Division (Soviet Union) that we are currently working on. Kges1901 (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking, right now, for tracking each Shtat change for each division throughout the war; possibly 4-5 plus x 2,000 Shtat changes. No, let's start by getting rid of that silly boilerplate 'a standard division' and instead begin to change over to, 'a rifle division formed under Shtat 400/4' or whatever, when we know the Shtat the division was formed under, with a link to Shtat and a section at TO&E for Shtat 400/4. Anything more we could reexamine after implementing the first version widely. I'm happy to help on the grunt work with this if you two experts can identify the two or three Shtats widely utilized on 22 June 1941. Reactive? Are you sure ;) Buckshot06(talk)23:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, comrades. When I have written 'standard Red Army rifle division' I have meant 'as opposed to mountain rifle division or NKVD rifle division or volunteer rifle division, etc.' However, I can see that a reference to the actual shtat, at least at the time of formation, or as of June 22, 1941, would be useful to the reader. Sharp has the info on the various shtats in his WWII OoB series. For example, in Vol. IX, "Red Tide", pp. 118-123, he gives the shtats of July 29 and December 6, 1941, the modified shtat of December 27, plus those of March 18 and December 10, 1942, and finally a note on the late-war reduced strength shtats. So what you are asking for could be done. Since I also work on cavalry divisions and Guards rifle divisions, I would suggest including those as well, and Sharp also has those shtats. It would be a massive undertaking; many pages of fine print to copy and I would have to get up to speed on table formatting. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, hold on, hold on, slow down, not quite. I do not mean let's upload all the Shtats right now!! Niehorster has the outline shtats on his site, backed by the original Russian websites. I would advocate (1) redirecting Shtat to Table of organization and equipment (done); (2) I will write a brief summary of Shtat 400/4, the most common one on 22 June, from Niehorster and insert it at TO&E; (3) request you Wreck Smurfy to begin taking down 'standard', which is so generic to be meaningless, and could create confusion, and insert the correct Shtat when you have it for the date of the division's formation; (4) tell me which other Shtats are in common use, and I'll go and summarise them. How does that sound? Buckshot06(talk)00:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I wasn't making a commitment, just speculating on what would be involved. I agree that the Shtat 04/400 of April 5, 1941, is the starting point, followed by the 04/600 of July 29 and the 04/750 of December 6. Nearly all of the 300-series divisions I've been working on were based on the 04/600. The reason I called it a "massive undertaking" is that I don't quite see the point of brief summaries. The differences between the shtats is in the details; for example, every rifle division had a sapper battalion, but exactly how those battalions were comprised makes the difference between one shtat and the next. In my view, at least. I've just made changes to the intro of the 252nd RD; let me know if that's what you have in mind. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, maybe I underestimated the work involved. Your changes however to 252 RD seem fine, pretty much what I had in mind. I am in two minds as to whether we can just say 'Shtat 04/400' in the intro and not explain any further - WP is supposed to write for generalists. Should we say Shtat [Table of Organisation] 04/400? Also need a sentence in the main body and a reference, but yes, good start..
However, even if we have to explain that Shtat 04/600 had 12-man engineer sections versus Shtat 04/750 with 11-man engineer sections (or whatever the details are), we only have to do it once, and have every RD linking to that page. Doesn't need major descriptions at each RD.. Buckshot06(talk)09:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a long look at Sharp over the past 20 hours. There was a huge difference between the 04/400 and 04/600 shtats. Personnel dropped from 14,454 to 10,790. About 75% of motor vehicles were removed. The Howitzer Regiment was removed for the duration of the war. The Light Artillery Regiment became the Artillery Regiment for the duration, although it got a 3rd Battalion in Dec., '42. The Reconnaissance Battalion lost its light tanks and armored cars and became a Company for the duration. The Antiaircraft Battalion was scaled down, and then became a Battery in the 04/750 shtat, and that disappeared for the duration in Dec., '42. The 04/750 called for 11,626 personnel, a slight increase. The 04/200 of Mar. 18, '42, called for 13,534, but I've never read of any rifle division being close to this strength at that time, or later. The 04/550 of Dec. 10, '42, dropped the personnel to 9,354, and it remained within a dozen or so of that figure for the duration. But the major change was between the 04/400 and 04/600, which became the template for the wartime establishment (dare I say "standard Red Army rifle division"?) The changes from one wartime shtat to the next were comparatively trivial and would require detailed descriptions. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As to my changes to 252nd RD, I agree adding something like "Table of Organization" would be an aid to understanding. I can also see adding a sentence in the main body. The reference is the sticky bit. As Kges1901 noted above, references to specific shtats for specific divisions on specific dates are few and far between. In this case I stated Shtat 04/400 because that was the only shtat in effect at the time of organization, but I have no specific reference for this division. In some cases with the 300-series RDs, Sharp will state something to the effect of "the division arrived at the front in late November with over 10,000 men, making it close to full strength." This implies it was formed according to Shtat 04/600, as you would expect given the date, and since that's far from full strength under Shtat 04/400. But this is an implication, not a direct statement. I have no idea where to find such specific references. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On a re-read of your second comment, I agree that "we only have to do it once, and have every RD linking to that page. Doesn't need major descriptions at each RD." I assumed there would be common pages to link to. Creating those pages, IMO, would be a non-trivial amount of work. I want to state that I'm not pushing back against what you propose. I think it would improve the articles. I'm trying to suss out the practical implications of implementing this change across the board. It might be something that works where the info is available, and where not, we fall back to the current "standard Red Army rifle division". More info may become available as time goes on, and as you know I'm always trying to improve my contributions. In fact, that's what has brought us to the 252nd RD. ;-)Wreck Smurfy (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the order forming the division (or assigning numbers to blocks of divisions) might state the shtat. I will look through my sources that are collections of orders. However, for example. the prikaz of the NKO that formed the 252nd according to its historical form on Pamyat Naroda from 28 June 1941 is not in the Russian Archives document collection of significant orders. Kges1901 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 01:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Kges1901. Yes, an order of that sort could possibly be useful. For example, a number of the divisions I've written up lately were formed from Siberian reservists according to an NKO order dated August 10, 1941. If I can find the actual order it might provide a reference. Sharp makes an indirect reference (see above) when he states re. the 363rd RD: "... in December 1941 went to Kalinin Front with 10,000 men, officially at full strength for the then-current authorization." That's pretty explicit that the division was formed under Shtat 04/600 or just possibly 04/750. But without the actual order it's still inference. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2019
You're cheerleading your own project. I've been digging through my library and so far I have not found any way to source your idea. But I'll keep looking. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 06:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wreck Smurfy is right that the specific info we would need to actually apply the shtats to specific divisions is lacking. But we can figure out some divisions from primary documents on Pamyat Naroda, although these are mostly useful for late war structure as that is the period from which most documents are digitized. For example, pages 9 and 10 of this February 1946 report on the 23rd Rifle Corps' structure' contain a listing of all of its units and their actual strength in both personnel and equipment compared to the authorized strength per the shtat. Kges1901 (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kges1901 on his points. Here are a couple of new things I've got from this evening's reading. One, Walter S. Dunn, Jr. in his Hitler's Nemesis, p. 65, states that the shtat of March 18, 1942, (04/200), decreased the personnel to 10,566, as opposed to the increase to 13,534 in Sharp, which I had previously found difficult to accept. If this is correct then all the wartime shtats were in the 11,000 - 9,500 range for manpower. Two, Sharp states in a note on the December 6, 1941, shtat in Red Tide, p. 121: "There were numerous variations in the divisions formed with this shtat, since the original organization specified things like 57mm antitank guns that were not being produced in quantity and Guards Mortar (rocket) units that were quickly removed to become High Command Reserve (RGK) units. There were also variations depending on how much motorization a unit had." It's becoming increasingly clear to me that while the shtats provided guidelines, and best-case scenarios, the divisions were sent to the front as required by the needs of the moment, and to ascribe any particular shtat to any particular division at any particular time, especially in the first period of the War, would be misleading. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh heavens above yes - when the Germans were approaching Moscow Stavka was not asking '..has 476th Rifle Division's independent anti-tank battalion got all 14 anti-tank guns, otherwise we cannot dispatch it to the front'.. no things were crazy and enormous improvisations became the order of the day. When we can find a reference saying that a specific division was formed or had a specific Shtat at a certain point of time, we should add it. Glantz in his books makes it clear that rifle divisions often operated at very low strengths - I've seen replications of reports from Smolensk 1941 about divisions in the hundreds; even late war, kept them in the front until very much under Shtat strength. The Shtat and modern TO&Es often don't reflect reality - but where we can find info on what a division's theoretical Shtat was we should add it. Buckshot06(talk)23:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My sources don't give info on what shtat was used to form what division. If I had it, I would include it. If I find it in the future I will add it. As you know I keep updating the pages I've worked on when I get new source material. However, from my reading, shtats can be inferred by the formation date, as only one shtat was in effect at any given time and the Military Districts were informed of changes within a very short time of them being made. In the interest of removing the boilerplate "standard Red Army rifle division" I would suggest the following: 1) for divisions formed before July 29, 1941, we substitute "Red Army rifle division based on the prewar table of organization and equipment (shtat)" and link to a description of the 04/400 shtat; 2) for divisions formed on or after July 29 we substitute "Red Army rifle division based on a wartime table of organization and equipment (shtat)" and link to a description of the 04/600 shtat, since this served as the template for the remainder of the war. We can fine tune from there. Seem reasonable? Wreck Smurfy (talk) 02:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, I've been looking at Wikipedia articles on infantry divisions of other WWII armies (Canada, UK, US, Germany), and I don't see any TO&E info or links. They include OoB info, but no more than that. The 389th Infantry Division (Wehrmacht) notes it was part of the 18th mobilization wave, but there is no link to the composition of a division of that wave. (I happen to have a source that could spell this out.) I still like the idea of providing some sort of link to the Red Army rifle divisional shtats, but I would point out that the editors of other WWII divisions don't seem to be willing or able to provide the equivalents. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, oops, link fix (possibly that British article needs to be retitled at a lower-case formulation). Don't know if the British Army used code designations for their TOEs. Ah yes, it's a good thought re your first-paragraph suggestion; roll out a couple of examples and I'll help with the mind-numbing wording changes on 150+ divisions (I'll volunteer for RDs 76-125 say, as a start..) Buckshot06(talk)22:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've found a very useful reference. Glantz's Colossus Reborn has a two-page table (Table 6.2, pp. 195-96) which details all the shtats from Apr. 5, 1941 to Dec. 18, 1944, from rifle regiments to number of horses, in figures only. If we can reproduce that, we will have everything covered. He follows this with Table 6.7, which covers 14 pages (pp. 201-215), and includes the authorized strengths for selected rifle divisions from June 22, 1941 to Dec., 1943. So, for example, the seven RDs of 39th Army as of Feb. 28, 1942 are all shown as having authorized strengths of 10,859, so they were all formed on the shtat of July 29, 1941, as you would expect given their formation dates. Please have a look at the edits I've made to the intro and Formation of the 330th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) and let me know if you approve. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 02:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't address some reviewer comments that pertain to having access to Glantz's Stalingrad trilogy, so could you please step in for those? Kges1901 (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice edit, and thanks for the recognition. It reminds me that I really have to update my user page. You might have noticed that I've nearly finished the 400-series rifle divisions, and I'd like your advice on what to take on next. I'm inclined towards the remaining Guards rifle divisions, but there's also the cavalry divisions and a lot of rifle corps. Which do you think would be most useful? Wreck Smurfy (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You could finish the missing rifle divisions between 60 and 259 or tackle the small number of GRDs left, which logically would fill in a lot of redlinks. Kges1901 (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll start cracking on the GRDs. I count 43 red links, so that should keep me busy for a while, especially as these tend to be longer articles.
Massive thanks also goes to Kges1901 as well. He has already given his advice, which I was about to request; I would endorse rifle divisions before anything else; prefer, myself, rifle divisions between 60-259. But if you'd like to do the Guards, please consider doing the remaining 60-259 rifle divisions in bits (esp 253rd, 175th, 162nd, 97th, 98th from our three-times-formed list above) as you go, or, afterwards. Corps and cavalry can be for later; we also really should do tank brigades in time. Buckshot06(talk)08:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I should be able to manage those 5 divisions as I go. My main difficulty with the lower-numbered RDs is lack of sources pre-June 22/41. This is obviously not an issue with the GRDs. Oh and my hats' off to Kges1901 as well. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Board games can be great ("Suez '73"!!) but try and provide as much bibliographical data as possible, including any weblinks which back the referencing up. Uraaahhh!!, or, er, since there's many Americans around here Ready and Forward!! Buckshot06(talk)09:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. "Suez '73" takes me back. I think I still have my copy somewhere. The only wargame I regularly use as a reference is "Baltic Gap". It's a viable source for my work because the Soviet OoB for the game was compiled by Charles Sharp, and because The Gamers takes historical accuracy very seriously. I'm hoping some other source (Glantz, Harrison, etc.) comes available to fill my own info gap on the Baltic campaign. But sure, I could put "Baltic Gap" in the bibliographies, with a weblink to MMP and/or Board Game Geeks and a mention of Sharp's input. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Many many thanks for all your super hard work this year, popularizing the Red Army's history at a much lower level, from the newly available sources!! Buckshot06(talk)02:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Soviet Major General Anton Stanislavovich Vladychanskii.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Soviet Major General Anton Stanislavovich Vladychanskii.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Soviet Major General Aleksandr Ivanovich Belov.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Soviet Major General Aleksandr Ivanovich Belov.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Soviet Lieutenant-General I.V. Boldin ca. 1942.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Soviet Lieutenant-General I.V. Boldin ca. 1942.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
I'll have a look at what I might have on the 206th. If it looks like something I could do a decent job on in a few days or so I'll have a go. As to the tank brigades, Sharp's Soviet Order of Battle, vols. I and II, covers all of these from 1940-45. If they are now fair game I can start adding unit histories and updating the list as I come to them in the course of my regular work; that is, if I find that a Guards division was supported at some point by a particular tank brigade I'll do an article on the brigade. Does that seem like a reasonable way to proceed? Wreck Smurfy (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel like a break from the Red Army, if you wish to have some help setting up a page dealing with the different compositions of the mobilization waves of the Wehrmacht Heer (you said you had a source), feel free to ask. Buckshot06(talk)00:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I feel like I'm getting back into the swing of things. The source I have is George Nafziger's 2000 book The German Order of Battle, Infantry in World War II. It goes into considerable detail on the mobilization waves and it's quite comprehensive. I got it as a gift and I really don't have much use for it. If you or someone else would like to have it, I'm willing to pass it on for the cost of postage. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's reasonable. Appears the 206th in question may be the 206-я стрелковая Корсунская Краснознамённая орденов Суворова, Кутузова и Богдана Хмельнцкого дивизия, Second Formation.
Do note Kges1901's comments re tank brigades at his talk page: "*For this list we need to work out what information should be included in the list itself to avoid the inconsistencies that developed with other lists. I'm thinking we should mention formation, disband, and conversion dates, awards and honorifics, and briefly list higher units with dates. Many brigades probably have enough information to create articles now. There's also enough information on the evolution of tank brigades to create a separate article on how Soviet tank brigade structure changed. In addition, I think Russian Ground Forces tank brigades should be their own article as their structure is fundamentally different from the WWII brigades as they include their own artillery, making them more of a combined arms force and so are probably larger in terms of strength." (User talk:Kges1901, current page). You're the lead editor on Soviet formations during World War II, so reorganise as you see fit at the tank brigades page, and I will write/rewrite conforming to your style. Buckshot06(talk)02:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re Nafziger, not me, but could I put your message on WT:MILHIST? We have lots of German Heer/SS formation enthusiasts; you could run a little auction if you wished to try and decide on who's to get it.. Buckshot06(talk)02:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked up the 206th (2nd Formation) in Sharp. Formed in Buguruslan in the South Urals which might explain the connection to Turkmenistan. It looks like it would take 10-14 days work to do it justice, but I could do something a bit more basic if its urgent and flesh it out later. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take Kges1901's guidelines under advisement. They seem very reasonable. Also, I had no idea I'm considered "the lead editor on Soviet formations during World War II". I'm honoured. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, by all means put the message up. I'm not interested in an auction, since the book was a gift and its just taking up space in my library. But you should note that postage costs will be from Canada. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no urgency now that you have the link to the story about the 748th RR; yes, now Kges1901 is now undertaking a bunch of other work, you are indeed that lead editor; I will post that advert. Buckshot06(talk)04:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the 206th RD is now "finished". As expected it took me about 14 days but well worth it as it was quite an interesting unit and I had no idea how much info I had available on it. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The second formation of the 206th should be pretty well documented - Pamyat Naroda has the combat journals for the entire war and the unit's commander had a war history written in 1946 before the division was disbanded, too. I'll get back to the Red Army eventually, but when I come back to it I'll probably work on getting the 58th Guards RD to FA. Though Berdimuhamatov's ancestor may have served with the 206th, it was mostly not a Uzbek division, at least when formed, looking at the detailed demographic breakdown of the division in this document. Kges1901 (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nafziger
Hi Wreck Smurfy. I understand that you have a copy of Nafziger's The German Order of Battle, Infantry in World War II looking for a good home in exchange for the cost of the postage from Canada. If this thoughtful and generous offer is still open I would be keen to take you up on it. I do a fair bit of work around MilHist articles and could make good use of it. Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're the first caller so the prize is yours. :-) Please email me: daveolie at eastlink dot ca and we can work out the details. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Soviet Major General Sergei Isaevich Karapetyan.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Soviet Major General Sergei Isaevich Karapetyan.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Soviet Major General Konstantin Nikolaevich Tsvetkov.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Soviet Major General Konstantin Nikolaevich Tsvetkov.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks and Guards Nikolaevskaya Red Banner Rifle Division
Dear Wreck Smurfy, I continue to be staggered and amazed by your fortitude in cracking through these Guards Rifle Divisions one at a time!! Please accept my very best wishes in this regard. Now, at 14th Guards Army we have a redlink for the 86th Guards Motor Rifle Division, the Nikolaevskaya Red Banner Division. If you wish to do something different, and you would like to, you might wish to consider doing one out of order, which would fill a gap for a division that existed until the Moldovans reportedly took it over in February 1992. Many thanks again for all your hard work!! Buckshot06(talk)04:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Buckshot06. Thanks for the kind words and your best wishes. I've had a look at the 86th GRD stub, and I can flesh it out a bit during the next few days. I want to get the 68th GRD article up to standard before committing to anything else; these side-trips can take a lot of time. But I will get to the 86th in due course for a more complete study. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I got a start on the 86th GRD this evening. I'm going to leave it at that for now as I start on the 69th GRD. And if you have anything at all on the postwar of the 68th GRD I'd appreciate it, because I've got nothing. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Soviet Lieutenant Colonel Aleksandr Filippovich Belyaev.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Soviet Lieutenant Colonel Aleksandr Filippovich Belyaev.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Soviet Major General Markis Bikmulovich Salikhov.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Soviet Major General Markis Bikmulovich Salikhov.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Soviet Junior Political Officer Sergei Vasilevich Vavilov.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Soviet Junior Political Officer Sergei Vasilevich Vavilov.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Soviet Major General Nikolai Aleksandrovich Shvarev.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Soviet Major General Nikolai Aleksandrovich Shvarev.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Soviet Lieutenant General Fyodor Andreevich Volkov.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Soviet Lieutenant General Fyodor Andreevich Volkov.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Soviet Major General Pyotr Ivanovich Kulizhskii.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Soviet Major General Pyotr Ivanovich Kulizhskii.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Soviet Colonel Filipp Davidovich Dibrov.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Soviet Colonel General Ivan Ilich Lyudnikov.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Soviet Colonel General Ivan Ilich Lyudnikov.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Soviet Colonel Nikolai Panteleimonovich Kucherenko.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Soviet Colonel Nikolai Panteleimonovich Kucherenko.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Soviet Lieutenant Colonel Grigorii Trofimovich Skiruta, 1950s.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Soviet Lieutenant General Nikifor Gordeevich Khoruzhenko.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Soviet Lieutenant General Nikifor Gordeevich Khoruzhenko.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Soviet Major General Aleksandr Fyodorovich Vasilev.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Soviet Major General Aleksandr Fyodorovich Vasilev.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Soviet Major General Leonid Nikolaevich Lazanovich.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Soviet Major General Leonid Nikolaevich Lazanovich.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Soviet Major General Pyotr Nikolaevich Chernyshev.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Soviet Major General Pyotr Nikolaevich Chernyshev.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Was the Soviet infantry division holding Nikolayevka during this battle the 48th Guards Rifle Division? I'm sure that Noclador, formerly of this Italian Corps, would be actively interested to see any clarifications/expansions of this article that you could add. Please note the talkpage warnings about inflated stories, but I have checked the Ruwiki account thru Google Translate and the essential facts - that the Alpini Corps broke out at the cost of about half its' soldiers- appear correct. Buckshot06(talk)10:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at the Soviet Staff study "Rollback" which I overlooked in writing the article on the 48th GRD. You're correct, it was holding Nikolayevka on January 23; there were also rear elements of the 184th RD in the area, as well as units of the 6th Guards Cavalry Corps. According to this source the 48th GRD killed or captured more than 5,000 of the Alpini during Jan. 25-26 and 6th GCC eliminated most of the remainder the next day. Seems somewhat inflated. I will update the 48th GRD article when I get a chance. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The one source I have on the Izbushensky battle states that it was the 812nd RR of the 304th RD defending against Savoia on August 23. However, that source is an Advanced Squad Leader scenario published in 1989. :-) Glantz has no info other than that the 304th was in the area at that time and was digging in on August 27. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks WS. Can you link the "Rollback" study so that I can add the full references to the Nikolayevka battle?- I've linked 48 GRD but have done nothing else and have no source. Agree re the Savoia charge, "Advanced Squad Leader" simply does not cut it, probably relies on Cold War Italian sources. Will do nothing more on that. Does Glantz have anything on Nikolayevka? Cheers Buckshot06(talk)21:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
By Order 24/2021/Z of the Red Army Editors' Group, I am pleased to award you this heartfelt barnstar for the staggering, detailed writeup of both the 1940 and 1941 formations of the 160 sd, the 160th Rifle Division!! Very good work!! Your contribution to mutual Western - Russian understanding in these frigid times will assist!! Buckshot06(talk)06:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves for This editor is near-tirelessly working through creating detailed divisional histories of large numbers of Red Army Second World War rifle divisions, greatly contributing to making this material accessible beyond those who can afford to buy expensive library subscriptions or books such as those by David Glantz. Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Great thanks for the honour. I see this is not handed out lightly or very often recently. I appreciate it very much. Now I REALLY have to update my user page. Spaciba, tovarichi!Wreck Smurfy (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced
Thanks for your kind words about the article on the 129th Guards. I'm interested in contributing to TDYK but I don't think this is the best example of my recent work since I was hampered by not having any specific sources on the Carpathian operations; most of what I included was cribbed from the articles on those campaigns, which in turn was cribbed from German Wiki. A better example would be my article on the 95th Guards Rifle Division, which has extensive quotes and several images. A few years ago I went through the process of getting Good Article status for my 331st Rifle Division article and I frankly found it a distraction from my regular work, so I haven't bothered since then. Granted, I think my articles have improved since then, so I guess I should revisit the whole business. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:Soviet Colonel Kornei Mikhailovich Andrusenko.jpg listed for discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 217th Rifle Division, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Belorussian Front.
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations opening soon
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting opening soon!
Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correction to previous election announcement
Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting closing soon
Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your watchlist
First of all, thanks for your work creating articles on Red Army divisions!
Second, sorry for sending your watchlist berserk. It goes like this: I was doing an AWB run looking for non-standard dates, and many articles on Red Army divisions came up. Whilst the suggested changes usually weren't much use I did notice that they all used mdy dates. I ended up investigating it a bit. As I understand, the Soviet Union used dmy dates, and since these articles have a "strong national tie" to the Soviet Union, they should use the same date format as it did. Just so you know why your watchlist exploded. Cheerio.
Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 04:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This has been a source of discussion over the past years. Frankly, in my private correspondence I prefer to use dmy dates. However the default in en.wikipedia is mdy, as this is the most common format in the English-speaking world. You will note that when I'm directly quoting a Russian-language source I keep it correct to the original dmy. In my current article you might notice that in a quote the dates are given in all-numerals divided by periods, as in the original. (This is also commonly used in Russian sources; they did not strictly use dmy with the month spelled out.) OTOH, if I'm editing an article that uses dmy I do likewise, for the sake of consistency.
In any case, if you want to do this sort of reformatting in future it would be polite to get in touch with the article creator in advance, rather that after the fact. I will be reverting the edits in the other articles you reformatted. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not if I revert myself first! 🙂 (I've got some tools that make it easier for me to revert them than for you to revert them).
(I think I've got all of them, but you are welcome to double check)
The only thing you said above that I disagree with is the comment about mdy being the default date format on en.wiki. There is no default date format, but you are welcome to use a default format (or is that what you meant?)
I'll go more careful before changing dates, I didnt actually read the MOS properly, and missed the "English-speaking" part of MOS:TIES.
As far as dates go, it would be so convenient if everyone just used the same date format, (yyyy-mm-dd ISO dates probably). In Australia, we use dmy, and a company I worked for at one point had someone in Human resources who was used to using mdy dates. After they got involved in some databases of employee birthdays, several people got two "birthdays" in a year, one on their actual birthday, and the other on a mdy interpretation of their dmy birthday. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 08:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I appreciate that.
I was informed years ago that it was the default, but maybe it has been changed. In any case, I use it for consistency.
Yes, it was the "English-speaking" part of MOS:TIES that was pointed out to me at the time.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Would you mind checking the entry for 21st Guards Rifle Division in this list and (probably) amending it. I think it is incorrect. Many thanks!! Slava Ukrainii!! Buckshot06(talk)04:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. It checks out with what I put in the article.
That wasn't me!! That dastardly deed doerKges1901 somehow discovered what I had asked you, verified with his miles deep set of sources, and fixed the entry!! Thank you Kges1901, you really are a star!! Your work is constantly much appreciated!! On the basis of your edit, I have now fixed the entry at the 1989-91 list as well!! Buckshot06(talk)02:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just wrote up a stub for the Gorodok offensive. I don't have Glantz's Battle for Belorussia at the moment, but if you have time you could expand it. I'm planning to write some articles about the winter 1943-1944 offensives in eastern Belarus in the next several weeks. Kges1901 (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Combat path of the Soviet 414th Rifle Division in the Crimean Offensive (1944).jpg listed for discussion
To be honest, I think it's adorable that thinking people are actually concerned about copyright over an 80-year-old image that was published in a nation-state that no longer exists. If that's what floats your boat, go ahead and delete it. I have actual work to do. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot (and splitting proposal notice)
I would like to thank you for your detailed study of many Soviet divisions. I have translated some of them into French, although I have chosen to follow the Russian Wiki way of listing formations on separate pages.
Bonjour et merci for your kind words. If there is anything I can do to help with your project, please let me know. I'm more fluent in French than I am in Russian.
As to splitting divisional histories, I'm following enwiki practices for the past decade or so. In principle, I agree, but in fact many of those motorized divisions would be considered stubs if given their own pages, since there is so little info available on them.
Dear Le Petit Chat, greetings from Nouvelle-Zelande!! The practice of keeping all the divisional histories together was principally my doing. There is no problem whatsoever with splitting them when they reach a split size that works with WP:SIZERULE. Buckshot06(talk)07:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA), version 4.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:195th Rifle Division with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.
Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at . Leave a note at Talk:195th Rifle Division saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!
Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk· contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wreck Smurfy, I am well aware you're an infantry rather than a tank man, but if you wanted to look at this draft and make appropriate changes, it would probably help the greater cause. Kind regards, Happy New Year!! Buckshot06(talk)07:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, let me tell you I was a tread-head when I first began studying military history.
As to this draft, where to begin? It's not encyclopedic in any sense, it's vague and contains almost no specifics, relies on a single source, and is factually wrong to boot. (There were no tank divisions at Stalingrad, to begin with.) I don't like sounding harsh, but this requires a complete restart and at least several more sources.
Having consulted Sharp, I have to add that this draft (with the possible exception of the postwar history, for which my only source might be Feskov et. al.) is only correct on one point: the division was part of 13th Mech. Corps on June 22, 1941. It was disbanded on July 4, one of the first divisions disbanded during the war.
If you think it would be useful for this user, and for "the greater cause", I could take an evening off from the 186th RD and show them how it's done. I have the necessary sources and could put this together in a few hours. I was planning to do the rest of the TDs at some point. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I damn well know it was like a first year student assignment. Yeah you can focus on the (I Formation) - I have the (II Formation ) clear and solid, right down to disbandment at Chuguev in Kyiv Military District c1989. But this draft was clearly about the I Formation so let's fix this first.
Please let's rewrite this, but with some sensitivity to a new user: notes on the talkpage and on their User Talk first, give them an example of a good Eastern Front TD article etc. I will back you up. Cheers Buckshot06(talk)19:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After a third look, I think Kges1901 is likely correct. From what I've seen from such things as ChatGPT this draft seems to match the fingerprints. Given this, I think the draft should be discarded, without regard to "sensitivity". The user is playing fast-and-loose with the rules, and needs a reminder. If they continue this sort of shit, they are no great loss.
I was at work this evening, and had no time for editing. Buckshot06, if you have the 2nd Formation info ready to go, I can write the 1st Formation tomorrow and then hand it on to you. We can call it a tag-team. ;-) I'll use my article on the 28th TD from several months ago as a template. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got unexpected work duty this evening, but will be on board tomorrow.
January 2024
Your edit to 186th Rifle Division (1939 formation) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 170th Rifle Division (Soviet Union), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glusk.
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:PanikakhaMonumentStalingrad.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:PanikakhaMonumentStalingrad.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pavel Batov may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .
Hello, I'm Chris troutman. I noticed that you made a change to an article, NKVD, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. WelpThatWorked (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello Wreck Smurfy! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as 195th Rifle Division, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://dokumen.pub/rollback-the-red-armys-winter-offensive-along-the-southwestern-strategic-direction-1942-43.html, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.
wikimedia.org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, 195th Rifle Division, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
Your edit to 186th Rifle Division (1939 formation) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
