User talk:Kges1901/2018/August

The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 2018
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) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Russian military biographies
Hi again. I have complied a (still somewhat incomplete) list of biographies present in Russian but missing in English; over 90% of the redlinked names are military, and they are pre-screened to be super-notable. Did you know that the Soviet record for most shootdowns in one sortie does not have an article in English? Or that 22 double Heroes of the Soviet Union don't have articles? And that Major-General Ivan Semyonovich Nikitin was wanted for treason by the Soviets, but executed by the Nazis first? Please do dig in (Barnstars will be awarded for high numbers of full articles).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for compiling the list. I am already aware about the missing double heroes and had listed them on one of my to-do lists last year. I eventually will create some new ones, but right now I am trying to improve the quality of existing articles (we have too many Russian military history-related stubs right now). Kges1901 (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case, please do take a look at Category:Hero of the Soviet Union stubs. Cheers!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Alabama Secondary Sources
What would be the secondary sources for the 55th United States Colored Infantry Regiment. What would be the secondary sources differ from 55th Regiment United States Infantry? I'm trying to get these done properly and I've got other people doing the opposite. Adamdaley (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * uses 55th United States Colored Infantry. Also, the result of these  google searches - the fact is that the majority of secondary sources use [number] [state/organization] [unit type] [unit size] to refer to units and not Dyer's order of [number] [regiment] [state] [Volunteer] [unit type].  Kges1901 (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

American Civil War: Alabama Regiments
The only problem I see at the moment (and I'm not bringing up anything from a few days ago) is the Category:Alabama Union Civil War Regiments is there is the 55th Regiment United States Colored Infantry is in italics. This shouldn't appear this way compared to the others (106th, 110th Regiment United States Colored etc). Then there is the 1st Alabama Infantry Regiment (Colored) appears not only in italics but this shouldn't be appearing there at all this would be the 55th Regiment United States. So we need the 1st Alabama to be removed and the 55th Regiment Unite States unitalics. Does that sound fair? Adamdaley (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The italic formatting is automatically used for redirects; it is a default setting for category appearance and cannot be changed. Honestly I'm not sure if the Federal USCT designations should be included in the state unit categories. Ideally I would keep the 1st Alabama Colored redirect in the state category, and remove the Federal designation USCT units from the state category. Kges1901 (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a Federal designation USCT Category? Adamdaley (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is Category:United States Colored Troops Civil War regiments. Kges1901 (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We are naming Union Civil War Units with what source? Adamdaley (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For the titles of the articles I have worked on, I have used a combination of the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion and the US NARA's Compiled Service Records of the USCT. Kges1901 (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It appears to me to be very similar to what Dyer Compendiums has. Adamdaley (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is similar, but the difference is the order of regiment in the designation. Some of the entries in Dyer have regiment as the second word in the designation, as with your recent page moves, but the sources I am using have 'Regiment' last. Additionally most secondary sources have regiment last as well, so would you be fine if the word order of the USCT designations was standardized to have 'regiment' last? If you are not I will open up a wider discussion on the MILHIST talk page. Kges1901 (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Regiment being the last word in the titles, this is standard practice on WP. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I remember Peacemaker67 wanting the word "Regiment" to differentiate it from "Division(s)". I'll get used to it eventually where-ever you put the word "Regiment". Adamdaley (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Elands River (1900)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Elands River (1900) 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 Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Elands River (1900)
The article Battle of Elands River (1900) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Elands River (1900) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)