User talk:Kges1901/2016/May

Your edit to 169th Rifle Division

Hey, Kges. Always good to have your input on what I write. Just to double check on this one: Feskov et. al. state that this division was disbanded at Lepel in 1945-46. However, STAVKA Order No. 11095 of May 29, 1945, part 6, lists the 169th as one of the rifle divisions to be "disbanded in place" as stated in the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany article. Can you give me some idea on how to reconcile these sources?Wreck Smurfy (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Wreck Smurfy

@Wreck Smurfy - It's quite possible that the order might not actually have been carried out or changed for the 169th and instead it was moved to Lepel, Kges1901 (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Vitaly Feskov and his team were working from much more data, and information from about 70 years available for research. But I've rechecked the relevant page in Feskov et al 2013 and the disbandment of all the divisions of the 40th Rifle Corps is not totally clear. Would suggest if either of you want to follow this up, that you take a look at http://www.ww2.dk/new/newindex.htm and then write to Michael Holm. David Glantz does not appear to specialise in the detailed changes to the order of battle after the war. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Or of course one could query the http://www.soldat.ru/forum, if one can cobble the Russian question together. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies from you both. While I appreciate that Feskov and team had access to much data, their work still constitutes a secondary source, while the STAVKA order is unquestionably a primary source, and all my history profs drilled into me that, in such a case, the primary source must take precedence, especially if the secondary is not totally clear. Also, thanks for linking to Holm's website, Buckshot. I should find that useful, even if I have little interest in postwar history.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Wreck Smurfy

I might share your reasoning WreckSmurfy, but we are actually not working to history-writing rules here. WP:PSTS says '..Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.'

This means that Feskov et al 2013, a secondary source, is actually higher-priority for WP purposes than the original decree. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This is one of the rules of WP I have a hard time getting my head around, like "Original research is a bad thing." However, these are the rules of the road, so be it. What I plan to do is to edit the Postwar section along the lines of "Sources differ as to the postwar fate..." and leave it to the reader. Cheers back atcha both.Wreck Smurfy (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good - hopefully some better information will appear in time. Wreck Smurfy, you now have a copy of Feskov et al 2013, yes? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

No. From where should I access this?Wreck Smurfy (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Either Buckshot06 or I can email you a copy. Kges1901 (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

April 2016 Milhist article writing contest

		The Writer's Barnstar
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing second in the April 2016 Milhist article writing contest with 120 points from 22 articles. Congratulations! AustralianRupert (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 6 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Ivan Kabitsin page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

the legend of ben hall wiki page

I am trying my best to provide all the citations and information, as well as draft this wiki page to Wiki's guidlelines, but I cannot seem to figure out how, despite reading the tutorials. They are quite simply too difficult to understand.

I would appreciate any assistance in getting this page corrected so it is no deleted, which I think is quite unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattholmes77 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mattholmes77: The article has enough notability proven that it won't get deleted for that, nor is it promotional in tone anymore. The major problem with the article is that all of the references are bare urls. This problem is easy to fix as all you have to do is format your citations using the template Cite web. As for the inline citations, there should be a reference at the end of each paragraph that verifies the information in that paragraph. Kges1901 (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Again, I don't understand what the 'template Cite web' means. I've been reading the "how to" articles but they make no sense to me, I literally cannot follow what it's saying. Could you show me an example of how to format using the template Cite web? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattholmes77 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mattholmes77: Template:Cite web is on this page. Just fill in information into the fields after inserting the blank template into the article to generate a reference. Kges1901 (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I believe I have now fixed the Inline citations issue and corrected it to Wiki's guidelines. How do I get the two warnings on the tope of my page removed? Any ideas? Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattholmes77 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Divisional Cavalry Regiment (New Zealand)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Divisional Cavalry Regiment (New Zealand) 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 Nick-D -- Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)