User talk:Kges1901/2017/July

345th Rifle Division
345th Rifle Division Hello, Richard. I wrote most of the 2nd Formation of the 345th Rifle Division based on what you wrote in your article on the 87th Rifle Corps. The only cite in that article was Feskov. I would be happy to add other references if you could provide them.
 * The corps article was written by Buckshot, but it goes back to the first version of the 33rd Motor Rifle Division article here, created by him way back in 2007. You'll have to ask him where he got it from. I'm not sure that the information pertains to the 345th, the other article said 355th, but Glantz seems to contradict himself between his two August Storm books on which divisions were part of the 87th Corps. Either way, I'm definite that it doesn't come from Feskov et al 2013, as I've checked the page and there's nothing about the Sakhalin invasion in the entire book.Kges1901 (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The original 33 MRD source is at the very bottom of that quoted page - Soldat.ru forums. A unfiltered version of the original source Feskov et al used, but needing to be checked against published sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The soldat.ru forum link no longer works. Kges1901 (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no link - there never was any. The forums are accessible via http://soldat.ru/forum/, but soldat.ru has changed, probably more than once, the thread links and I cannot reaccess old threads (as you'll see if you try to click on other soldat.ru forum discussions that I linked.) It remains sub-standard for wikipedia purposes and needs to be verified against published sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like at least some of the text was from Shikorad's Дальневосточный финал, which is not fully available online. The book says it was the 355th that was at Sakhalin. Kges1901 (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems I mistook the main editor of the 87th Corps article as Kges rather than Buckshot. I have no sources at all for the 1945 history of the division, apart from a passing reference in Sharp, which does not mention anything about Sakhalin, so I will leave it you two to figure out while I continue the 1st Formation at Sevastopol. If the 2nd Formation info proves incorrect, please edit accordingly. Wreck Smurfy (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

136th Guards Motor Rifle Brigade
I'm wary of creating an article for this brigade (the first sentences of which I've stuck at North Caucasus Military District for now) because I cannot trace the lineage. It was created on December 1, 1993, and the Russian WP pages for it and the 33rd Guards MRB appear to trace a lineage link from the 33rd Guards MRB (9 GTC) to the 204th Guards Motor Rifle Regiment, which may have ended up not in 9/16 GTD but 94 GMRD. But I cannot find anything that substantiates the formation of the 136 GMRB from the 204 GMRR. Can you dive into the Russian internet and find anything? Buckshot06 (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The Russian article was unusually well sourced, so this Russian news article seems to say that 136th was formed in 1993 with different honorifics, then in 1997 combined with the 204th Guards MRR of the 205th OMSBR, inheriting the 204th's honorifics. Ruwiki's lineage information is undoubtedly from this article, and I've added the inline citations there. Feskov lists a 204th Guards MRR with the honorifics that match up with svpressa as having been converted in 1957 from the 33rd Guards Mechanized Regiment, which is the 33rd Guards MRB's successor unit. The 204th was with 9th GTD (successor of 9th GTC), and between the late 1960s and late 1980s the 94th Guards swapped regiments with the 16th Guards Tank Division, resulting in the transfer of the 204th to the 94th Division. After the 94th left Germany, the 204th ended up in Buynaksk at the beginning of the 1990s. However, Feskov says that the lineage of the 204th was transferred to a new 204th, formed with the 205th Brigade at Buynaksk in 1996. Kges1901 (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Your last point from Feskov is completely correct. Andrew Duncan, 'Russian forces in decline,' Jane's Intelligence Review in 1996 (ish) writes and confirm at the time that a very unusual arrangement - a motor rifle regiment inside an independent motor rifle brigade - applied for a while in the mid 1990s. Thank you for finding the data for 204 GMRR (I Formation). Almost worth a small stub article on the 204 GMRR, just to sort out the tangled lineage links. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

List of armored regiments of the United States Army
This should be armored and cavalry regiments. Please note the existence of this list, add regiments as you create them to it, and brief details of each battalion and its service period if available. Please also note http://baummil.org/arm-cav.html, which via help from the Office of the Chief of Armor has already done much of the groundwork. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Splitting paragraphs
Thankyou for this edit. Please continue to do this!! Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Pyotr Pumpur
Alex ShihTalk) 00:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 390th Rifle Division
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 390th Rifle Division you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of EyeTruth -- EyeTruth (talk) 05:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for 7th Guards Tank Division
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update: Technology update:
 * The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
 * Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.
 * Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Page Curation/Suggested improvements
 * The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
 * User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
 * User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:
 * Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

National Militaries Task Force
Hey, I've found myself assessing a lot of your US reserve unit articles for MILHILST as I have been trying to chop down on the number of unassessed articles and of course, your articles are at the top of the list. I just wanted to ask if you could add the national task force text to your future articles so as to link the articles with a task force that fits them well, and is tailored specifically to them as opposed to the general US one. I myself only just stumbled upon the national task force, but if you could add that in that would certainly help with linkage inside our project. So that you don't need to navigate over, the text is |National-task-force=y    Thanks! &#34;I&#39;d rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me&#34; - George S. Patton :: markus1423 (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that these articles fall under the scope of the task force because in the scope section of the TF page it says that it is limited to "currently operational national armed forces". Interpreting this narrowly, I don't think that long-inactive units fall under the scope. Kges1901 (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks...looks like I may have mistagged more than a few articles :) &#34;I&#39;d rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me&#34; - George S. Patton :: markus1423 (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)