User talk:Auntieruth55/Archive 3

Edits to WP:GA
A copy-paste error? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * yes, thank you for pointing it out. I fixed it. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, you've now accidentally redlinked it. You want the name of the article (without the italics) - pipe - name with italics for it to work. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks, I think I got it right now. And managed not to delete all other changes after me...--Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

SMS Fürst Bismarck
Thanks a lot for your thorough review of the article. It's given me more things to consider when I eventually improve the rest of the German warship articles. It's easy to get in a rut when writing similar articles over a period of time, and it's sometimes hard to get an outside view that is still familiar enough with the subject area that s/he can offer valuable input. Thanks also for taking a look at the Siegfried class coast defense ship article. I do intend on adding another section, similar to the one I added to Fürst Bismarck, but the book I used to do so this morning doesn't go back quite far enough for these ships. My other two books that would go into better detail are unfortunately a 2-hour drive away, and I'm swamped with stuff in real-life. Eventually I'll get to it, but not for a couple of weeks at least. Thanks again! Parsecboy (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * glad to help. It seems that the first part of the "coverage" criterion is often the hardest part for writers to do, placing something in the larger context.  I try to ask "so what"...why is it important to know about this "thing" (ship, act, book, whatever), and where does it fit into the big picture.  You've got a couple of "big" pictures, of the development of warships, their operation and tactical uses, the international and internal relations issues.  let me know when you need B review for your other articles, too, and I'll be happy to help.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Humphrey Bohun on hold
Thanks for your review, and sorry for the late response! It's been busy lately, but I'll try to get to it anon. Lampman (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Lampman (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Heinrich Mann Prize winner
I have nominated heinrich mann prize winner for renaming to heinrich mann prize winners. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can help you rename the category if you want. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, just tell me how to do it.:) --Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just go through each article and replace the category accordingly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm Kaulbach
What are you trying to say? How is this a "duplicate article"? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There is another article with the name Wilhelm VON Kaulbach. Mostly from the 1911 Brit. so the short one can be deleted. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then just redirect it. You don't need to delete it. It's entirely logical that someone might forget the "von". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * can't I just rename the category? I don't want to go through them all again.  --Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I'll fix it for you. As for the Wilhelm von Kaulbach, he doesn't appear to be the same person. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

yes, he is Wilhelm von, and Wilhelm. They should be, at least. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still learning. Seems there was probably a bot to use for that, but I didn't know how to use them, or how to write one...so....
 * I renamed the category for you. As for the article, if you want it to redirect, just replace the Wilhelm Kaulbach article with #REDIRECT Wilhelm von Kaulbach Do you want me to delete the deletion discussion since it wasn't a deletion issue? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did the redirect, thanks for renaming the category. I did some hunting and found a Bot that would have done it.  Nexxt time I'll try that.  I don't know if I can delete the deletion thingie or not.  ???  --Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want something deleted and you're the only one that's edited it, you can just place db-author on it. I'm not an admin so I can't actually delete anything. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks, I'll remember that for next time--however, someone had assessed it, so there was someone else's name in the history of the talk page. thanks for showing m that delete option though.  --Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Louis XVIII & Charles X
Auntieruth, do you want me to bring our conversation on your talk page or do you prefer it on mine? Frania W. (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * we can do it on yours, if you'd like. just let me know. Ruth--Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. If I need to converse with you, I'll leave a note here & you can come to my talk page. FW.  Frania W. (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack is working hard on these things, and that is commendable, but he needs some help and guidance.   --Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * When I go back to the article(s), or when Jack does, I will contact him on his talk page & offer that we work together. I (with others) have been doing it on an article with another contributor, leaving hidden comments in article at contentious points, or discussing on our respective talk pages, and it has worked well.  FW.  Frania W. (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, I was just wondering why Antonia Fraser is discredited as a reliable source on the Charles X talkpage ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.107.222.217 (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't take unsigned comments seriously, so if you really want to know, sign your comments with your user name and I'll respond. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok here, may I now know please? (ThatOneTimeNJ (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC))
 * hardly a real "user" name. anyway, it's not that her books aren'treliable, it's just that there are is a lot of work on Charles X that is also reliable, and far more analytical.  The person who was writing about Charles, and also Louis, used mostly Fraser,  and missed some obviously important points, seemingly because he relied almost entirely on Fraser for his information.  Fraser is good for color, and for the general this happened then that happened, but Charles and Louis are important, and we need to know why, and Fraser doesn't give that element.  She's more of a reporter/storyteller than an historian.  The point is balance.  Does this answer your question?  --Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you auntieruth55. Reading over the articles now, I realise I rushed them, Regards, Jack(Jack1755 (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC))
 * yep, but no problem, nothing that cannot be fixed.  :)  --Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

German Colonial Empire
During the past several months I contributed approximately 600+ words to the page. Along the way I seem to have run afoul of a whiney turf protector who dispenses lectures and likes to modify sourced citations. I am reluctant to engage in a protracted pissing match. I did notice your helpful edits and additions; carry on, please.–Gamahler (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * no point in pissing matches. It does need some work, and I don't have a lot of time I want to spend on it.  But I'll help you, if you want.  --Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sd Kfz 8
Thanks for doing my review for me - I don't know if you'd noticed I'd started on it? If you'd flagged it on the good article nominations page I wouldn't have...... Ranger Steve (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * sorry, I thought I did flag it. ???  maybe I didn't "save" ??  --Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to worry, no harm done! Good review too by the way.  Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, to avoid confusion I've removed myself from Good article nominations and added you instead. Obviously I can't sign myself as you(!) so I copy and pasted your name from Sd KFZ 9 and marked the article as on hold (I assume that's what your review meant). Hope that's okay, Ranger Steve (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks, I guess I forgot to save it when I did it myself. Oi!!! ;)  --Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Anglicized map
I've Anglicized File:Deutsches_Reich1.png as File:German_Reich1.png if that would be any use to you at Unification of Germany. Let me know if any additional changes are required. Wiggy! (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Anton Schlembach
Hi there! I appreciate the content you added to the article Anton Schlembach. This was a first for me. I have often seen people add content and not provide references. I have never seen someone add content and then mark the article as needing improved references. I don't mean to sound ungrateful, because I do appreciate the help. Can you tell me where you got the information you added? I can add the references then. Thanks! imars (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I added some content from the German wikipedia site. Just a paragraph, and then added the citation that "says" material comes from the Wikipedia.  I added the needs citations flag because there are no inline citations linking the material you've used with the source you cited. Was it all from there?  Or just part of it.  Do you read German?  There is a great deal of additional info in the German site on him.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ah yes, I just looked at your user page, and you do read German. There is more information on the bishop at the German page. Interesting stuff! Auntieruth55 (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for the info. The info was taken completely from the one source. I thought inline sources made little sense in that case. imars (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix/GA1
Hi, I've responded to your comments at Talk:Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix/GA1. I think all of your problems have been addressed. Thanks for the review :). Malinaccier (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pass, and thanks again for the review :). Malinaccier (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

'''I've renominated the Unification of Germany article. There is some documentation and rationale for things on the talk page. I think we're reasonably good on it. I'd appreciate your support. ''' Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm
Hi Auntieruth55, just a quick one. When I read "Von Roon and Wilhelm reorganized the Prussian army, rewrote training manuals ..." I pictured Kaiser Wilhelm at a desk, writing training manuals. :) Or at least taking an active interest in the manuals' content. That would be unusual for a regent. Does the source actually describe that sort of hands-on involvement by him? Best,  JN 466  09:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * it would seem unusual, and the implication is that he did. I could modify it somewhat, I think, maybe reorganized the Prussian army, including the revision of training manuals, etc.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Commiserations on the failed FAC. I can't help but think that the dearth of Support votes was, in part, due to the length of the article. Not that the length per se is bad or inappropriate to the topic, but simply that there were not enough editors who were willing to read the entire article and then comment on it. :( Best wishes and better luck next time,  JN 466  17:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * well to supports and no objections, but I guess that isn't "support"...Oh well. I know it's not an easy read, because it's so long.  But I do think that shorter is not always better.  I'll be happy with good article status, unless you think I should ask for a review to A status.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see any regular A-assessment activities in any of the relevant WikiProjects like History, Germany and Prussia. If I were you I'd rest on my laurels and enjoy the GA. :) -- JN 466  01:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks...
...for your note on Talk:Collofino--where I explained that "Importance:High" was an accident. My apologies, Drmies (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

 * thanks, very thoughtful of you. I'm going to run German Unification again for FA, when I get back from vaca, and I thought I'd call on several people to help me out.  It wasn't promoted the first time, largely because only 2 people actually read it.  (it's long). Take a look, when you have time.  Leave me some comments here or on the talk page.  Thanks!Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup! I wanted to make sure you knew your efforts are greatly appreciated :) I'll be glad to lend whatever help I can for your upcoming FAC. Drop me a line on my talk page when you're getting ready to run it again. Parsecboy (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've renominated the Unification of Germany article. There is some documentation and rationale for things on the talk page.    I think we're reasonably good on it. I'd appreciate your support. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hermann Friedrich Cloedt
— AustralianRupert (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

GA review Friedrich Foertsch
Sorry I was out for some time. I have to admit that I agree with your assessment. It will take a lot more effort to bring this article up to par. Please fail the article fro now. I may ask you again once I deem the article ready again. Thanks for your help. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * no problem leaving it on GA hold while you fix it, if you think you'll be doing it in the next 2-3 weeks. I don't mind holding off for a while.  Good luck, and let me know when you're ready.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for keeping the review on hold. I tweaked the article a bit more. May I ask you to have a second look and if possible provide me with some more feedback. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * it is much improved. I fixed some of the grammatical and syntactic issues, and clarified Fallex62 (plus citation).  You'd better read it through again and make sure I didn't misstate something.  It could still use an explanation of why Adenauer got him out of the USSR, but that shouldn't hold up GA.  Add it when you find out.  Was it Fallex 62 or 66 in which the Bundeswehr was described as a "speed bump"....I also made a wiki link on Fallex62.  There should be a comparable English article on that (something else for you to do?).  Auntieruth55 (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes thank you well done. All my sources state Fallex 62. I also tried to explain why Adenauer got him out of the USSR. He was just one among many released in 1955. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * if the sources say the "speed bump" metaphor is Fallex 62, then I'd add that, or something close to it. And the same with the Adenauer thing.  It sounds like he was specifically negotiating for Foertsch, rather than for the release of many. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

support for FA on German Unification
Sure, I will review the article. I haven't read it yet but a first look indicated that footnotes and citations are not separated yet. I am unsure what Wiki policy is on this but my personal preference is to separate them for ease of reading. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * that didn't seem to be the problem the last time. My preference is to not separate citations from notes, since the "notes" tended to be commentary on the citations anyway.  Also, re the formatting of the notes, I didn't use the short cut forms ref=name etc....., I continued the way I began.  The original article had 3 different kinds of footnotes and references, two kinds of bibliography, etc.  It was a mess and very difficult to read.  Thanks for your willingness to read such a lengthy bit of prose.  The pictures were all checked the last time, as were the maps (I'm not totally pleased with the map, but it was a real hang up for it to be in English!. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked. Here is the policy link on this.  WP:CITE  It seems that either way is okay, and neither is preferred over another, but once a style is established, it should not be changed unless the primary editor agrees to it and there is consensus.Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am no expert on this subject or on Wiki criteria for a FA, but WikiProject Germany is a relatively small band of brothers (and sisters) so I am willing to give it a go! I'm sure I will learn by it. Gruß. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Of particular concern seems to be the promotion of Bismarck as the ultimate hero.  I'm not sure I've done that, but a previous reader was "worried" that I had not remained "neutral" about him. and I'm okay with editing, copy editing, etc., but please contact me if you think it needs major changes, okay, so we can discuss?  Or if you, like a few others, want to change the formatting of footnotes, etc. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Auntie Ruth, thank you for directing me to the article. I just took a look at it and, yes it's long, but I will read it as soon as I can & give you my thoughts.

Jack is doing well working on his articles and then some! We all are trying to stay out of trouble!

Today is his 15th birthday.

Best to you, Frania W. (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

'''I've renominated the Unification of Germany article. There is some documentation and rationale for things on the talk page. I think we're reasonably good on it. I'd appreciate your support.''' Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Auntie Ruth, I feel hesitant at reading the article talk page before reading the article itself because I do not want to be influenced by other readers' comments. So, if you do not mind, I first will read the article, then turn to the discussion for enlightenment of the various points being raised by others.  You see, it already bothers me to know that several readers find the article too long.  However, I checked the length of some which I consider to be in the "heavy artillery" category:  Mozart:  52,023 bytes;  French Revolution of 1789:  71,567;  Beethoven:  74,843;  Bach:  75;190;  Einstein:  103,555;  Unification of Germany:  104,754 (eine Dicke Bertha, twice the weight of Mozart!);  September 11 attacks:  124,906 (I have no idea which article tops 9/11).


 * To summarize, you are right between Einstein & 9/11, and twice as large as Mozart.


 * Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Question: Was the name of the article ever discussed? My personal preference would have been "German Unity" or the "The road to German Unity". MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * no it was not. I revised an existing article into this.  I think it was named to be parallel to the one on Unification of Italy.  Einheit could be unification or unity, but nonetheless, it was a process, which I've emphasized in the article, and no where near "achieved" in 1871, with political and administrative unification. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Question: Why didn't you take the article to A-class prior to nominating it for FAC? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * the FA reviewers told me just to go ahead, from whom I asked advice, told me just to go ahead, because the Project Germany doesn't have an "A" class process per se. I really don't think of this as a military article, although it has military aspects.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * one of the reasons I contacted you, in the Military project...I figured you'd have another perspective to bring to it at this point....Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I hope I add value then. Have you read the German article Deutsche Reichsgründung and their respective sub-articles? MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have indeed! :)  Thanks for your time and effort.  I have read most of it and them.  I didn't think it worth the time to translate, figured I would write my own. I have translated some others, though, including the one on the Cologne War, well, translated part of it then proceeded from there. Have several sub articles. Is there anyone in the military project who would be interested in doing the battle pages.  It just does not intrigue me.  There are some good German sources, but I haven't found any in English. There was a request on the WP Germany page for Cologne war, so I did it, and found War of Cologne, which I redirected.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically a review falls into three domains: content review, language and grammar review and syntactical and formal aspects. Now English is not my native language so I can't really add much value in this area. Content, I have a basic knowledge of the historical highlights that lead to German unification, but by no means enough background to truly contest the article. I have some experience on the formal aspects of what makes a good article. Just to set expectations. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to ask a dumb question but my naïve perception was that the Franco-Prussian War was a focal point in German unification. But from reading the article I fail to understand how this (winning the war) led to the Proclamation of the German Empire. Maybe you could elaborate a little more on this? I'm missing the red line here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * see if that works....:) subsection under proclamation

Thanks
On Barryville–Shohola Bridge. If you could do a full copyedit, I'd appreciate it. Thanks again. Mitch 32(Want help? See here!) 19:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ping
Hi. I received your email, and have replied. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review problem
I noticed that you posted a review for SMS Derfflinger, but it is not on the GA review subpage, but directly on the article's talk page, which is incorrect. See Talk:SMS Derfflinger/GA1. Please rectify this. -MBK004 22:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Kaplan
Do you have page numbers for the Kaplan references (ref nos. 104-106)? Then we could use short refs (author, pg. no.) for these 3 refs, bringing them in line with the rest. -- JN 466  02:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Edward I
Hey, thanks for starting on the GA review of Edward I of England. It's quite a project, so it's commendable that you've embarked on it. I've responded to the initial comments you had, hope this is at least somewhat to your satisfaction. Lampman (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hi, I just nominated one of my articles for FAC (Werner Mölders). I know that my English is sluggish and the first reviewer basically told me to go back to square one, which is quite frustrating because I spend a lot of time in libraries and research and think it is well researched. Anyway that shouldn't be your concern but I was wondering if you could have a brief look and give me some help on the linguists of the article. If not, thanks anyway MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Ruth, I've gone through the entire text now and completed one round of copyedits, removing the most obvious Germanisms. Over to you now! Hope you didn't mind me jumping in; I had a day to spare, and the lead somehow caught my attention – such an irony for him to die as the passenger of a plane. It seems a good article, and an interesting story.  JN 466  22:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your help. I will carefully review to check if any factual omissions or errors were introduced. On a first glance it looks very good. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I added a paragraph to the section "Personal Life". I thought this bit of information is useful to understand his character. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your help. How close to a "well written" article do you think it is now? MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's a well written article, although others may not agree. It should pass. I'm not sure I can add to the review since I did some work on it...what do you think? Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ruth, I understand you feel you are being required to jump through hoops, but don't you think you've gone slightly over the top here? Animal Garden? Rudder Club?  JN 466  23:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)  You missed "Third Reich" (Third Empire). Yeah probably.  But I do think this reviewer's request is over the top.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I spotted that, and the Middle English provenance of the word "eulogy" ;)
 * To be fair, I think what he meant was that we should say "145th Royal infantry regiment" rather than "Königsinfanterie-Regiment Nr. 145", i.e. use an English translation by itself wherever possible. I tend to agree, except I don't know what all the numbers in, say, "II./Infanterie-Regiment 2" mean.  JN 466  23:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just translated Kings Infantry Regiment No. 145.    The other is, I think, II Infantry, 2nd Regiment.  But I'm not sure.  I'd saay, translate as close as we can then get Bee to go through it.  Is Colonel=Oberst in the Luftwaffe, or Commander?  We really need a better list, especially for those cadet ranks.  And to be fair, I'd say it would be a lot easier if the unit names were all in English.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * and I really need to work on my dissertation right now, and not let this dude aggravate me, so I will leave you and Bee to it. Send me an email or something if you get stuck. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Royal is better, methinks. Agree about English unit names; this is the English WP after all. Good luck with the dissertation ... I'll take the animal garden etc. out again, okay? :)  JN 466  23:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Royal is an adjective. Königs is a possessive (genitive noun, yes?) So King's... As in King's German Legion....  I'm way behind on my diss, need to put another couple of hours in on it today, which I won't have...tooooo tired. :)  Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * this has a template of how the groups are named (units, etc.)

Thanks
Thanks for your help in copy-editing my translation of the Prussian semaphore article. It has really been helpful. ColoradoZ (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * you're welcome, glad to help. It's an interesting article. Did you know that Archduke Charles used an optical semaphore system in southwestern Germany in the second and third coalitions?  That info could be added....I suppose you MUST read German, and there's a bit of literature on it.  Gunther Rothenberg wrote some stuff, not sure who else, that's all that comes to mind offhand.  Ruth Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have to check that out. I saw this article needed to be translated and it seemed an interesting topic.  I'll have to check the German bookstore when I return to Paris. Thanks again! ColoradoZ (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Rothenberg book is older, so perhaps a used book store or a library. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)