User:Jim Sweeney/Archive 1
Knights Cross recipients
[edit]![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
For your work on Knights cross recipients Waacstats (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC) |
I have come across a number of these articles while sorting through Category:People stubs and they all seem well written stubs just one point, would these be better stubbed with {{Germany-mil-bio-stub}} and possibly {{WWII-bio-stub}} rather than just {{bio-stub}}? Waacstats (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Pionier / Engineer
[edit]In Eberhard Heder article, if Pionier is German for Engineer, should we write at least once:
- joined the SS Pionier (Engineer) Battalion.
rather than just
- joined the SS Pionier Battalion.
That way we can learn something. Tabletop (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Something for you
[edit]![]() |
The Content Review Medal of Merit | |
In recognition of your contribution in improving Military history articles through A-Class and Peer Reviews, during the fourth quarter of 2008, please accept this Content Review Medal. -MBK004 04:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |
Holocaust in Belarus
[edit]Hi Jim Sweeney,
Yes, you're right. I was wrong when I reverted your edition, now it's in order. I'm sorry, --Baiji (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Knight's Cross recipients
[edit]I wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your contribution to the list of Knight's Cross recipients. Great job! MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Notability of Knight's Cross
[edit]I posted a question with the lead coordinator Roger Davies of the Military History Project. Maybe you want to help detailing the issue. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Späher Staffel
[edit]I don't know what a Spräher is but if you mean a Späher (German:scout) than I would think that this refers to a small scout/recon unit. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am not quit comfortable with the template as it is today. I suggest categorizing the Divisions according to armoured, infantry, mountain, Police and foreign. What do you think? I lack the necessary background to judge if this makes sense. I would appreciate in your input on this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll make the change and can you review please? I might make the wrong association. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Done, please check if the alignment is correct. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- looks good. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- have a look at my talk page User:EnigmaMcmxc is suggesting a different naming scheme MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Another question on the template is in regards to the Panzergrenadier status of some of the units: 27th, 28th, 31st, 32nd, 33rd, 34th and 38th Grenadier divisions.
- Grenadier units were essentially infantry whereas Panzergrenadier formations were motorised/mechansied (to an extent) infantry. Do we know weather or not the above formations where motorised/mechansied units? like for example the Wiking division?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Checked! Looks fine to me. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- have a look at my talk page User:EnigmaMcmxc is suggesting a different naming scheme MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- looks good. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Done, please check if the alignment is correct. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
re: Notability of Knight's Cross recipients
[edit]Ping! --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ping! MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
You create a lot of good content on regular basis. Please consider nominating it at Template talk:Did you know, I concentrate on nominating articles by new editors who may not be aware of T:TDYK, and by now you should be aware of this project. Remember that a content nominated at T:TDYK appears on Wikipedia's front page and is regularly seen by millions of people, so it is a great way to make sure your work is seen. PS. You may also want to link your talk archives from your userpage, as it is your talk page gives a confusing impression that you are a new editor. PSS. You may also consider nominating your articles at WP:MILCON.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Soldier magazine
[edit]Hey, cheers for that mate, looks like a nice little article. Thanks! Skinny87 (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
MILHIST Awards
[edit]Please do not vote on nominations for awards at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards unless you are a coordinator. Thanks, -MBK004 23:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Paul Egger
[edit]--Dravecky (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
|
From Wikipedia's newest articles:
- ... that adult land snails in the tropical genera Anostoma and Ringicella carry their oddly-shaped shells (pictured) upside down (i.e. spire down)?
- ... that Battle of Britain pilot Paul Egger was later awarded the Knight's Cross as a Tiger tank commander in the Waffen-SS?
- ... that Cambodia's Mongkol Borei District was part of Thailand until the French demanded it back in 1907?
- ... that Paul Kodish, best known as the current drummer for drum and bass band Pendulum, performed in 1986 with Brooklyn hip hop act Whodini?
- ... that nearly half the area of Estonia's 342 km2 (132 sq mi) Alam-Pedja Nature Reserve was once a Soviet Air Force bombing range and its surrounding buffer zone?
- ... that the John Cassavetes film Husbands, praised by Time magazine as Cassavetes' finest work, was condemned by Pauline Kael and other prominent critics?
- ... that Joseph Stalin personally rewrote Falsifiers of History to respond to U.S.-released information about the German–Soviet Axis talks?
- ... that the Heian period Japanese story Torikaebaya Monogatari is the tale of a man who lives as a woman and his sister who lives as a man, who eventually swap places in order to lead happy lives?
Congrats
[edit]Thanks! Looks like it was a close call initially. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
If you find the time have a look at the article and let me know what you think. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Ju 87
[edit]Hi Jim,
I thought European articles were spelt in UK English? Regards. Dapi89 (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I may just as easily be be wrong! How does someone find this out? Dapi89 (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
DYK for 1 SS Infantry Brigade
[edit]Shubinator (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
From Wikipedia's newest articles:
Elections[edit]If you haven't yet done so, please give serious thought to standing in the upcoming coordinator elections. You'd be an asset :) – Roger Davies talk 19:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
RE: Bravo Two Zero revert[edit]Hello Jim Sweeney. Just a quick note to say thanks for reverting the revert of my edits, they are now cited to the book they originated from. Thanks again. --Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! C-class vote[edit]You're about half an hour early for the voting phase, though I won't revert, I thought I would make you aware of that. Your vote may or may not be reverted, but in general all voting happens after the start of the voting period, and we are still technically in the sign up period. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Vote[edit]Great Opinion on C-Class I am with you on it also! I am glad to see that people are truly thinking about this subject. Have a Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver The Olive Branch 00:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Cooption[edit]I am glad that you have questions on the Cooption, what I believe it means by removing coordinators is that, when one of the coordinators has not been active in a long time, than the coordinators will come together and decide if that person is hurting the WikiProject because of his/her absence. Then they will vote and most likely replace that coordinator with a new one. Hope that answers any Questions you Had, Have A Great Day! Lord R. T. Oliver The Olive Branch 15:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Hugo Ruf[edit]I already commented on the discussion page. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Excellent image! Just replaced it, thanks! --Eurocopter (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC) SS Heavy Panzer Battalions[edit]Shouldnt the page names be either, for example, 101st SS Heavy Panzer Battalion or SS Heavy Panzer Battalion 101 - not as it is now 101 SS Heavy Panzer Battalion, which to me does not read correctly nor have i personnely seen the name presented like such in historical works. I only post this here as i know that you are one of the lead editors on these articles.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. Waffen SS[edit]Hello Mr. Sweeney, I'm kind of a newbie right here, so I wish that I didn't break any rule by editing a section in Waffen SS article (Section: Foreign volunteers and conscripts). I'm also impressed with this many medals in your page :D To the point .. the reason that I removed this picture: ![]() that it shows Bosnian "Muslim" SS that are doing Muslim prayer .. the point is that I didn't deny that there were Muslims associated with the Nazi regime, but showing this picture may cause many people to make a false connection between Muslims and Muslim prayers to the Nazi regime.
Ahmad E Shahin (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Thank you[edit]
Thank you[edit]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)[edit]
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Hi, would you mind having a look if your issues within this ACR had been addressed properly and if there is anything else to be done? Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 14:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Fighter Leader[edit]I think that is a good idea. Would "Fighter Leader Brittany" be a good translation? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC) 184 Airborne Division Nembo[edit]I'm not exactly sure how creating a red link is "fixing" the link. You are going to create a new page, right? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Fountain of Time[edit]There had been prior complaints that right-facing images should be on the left and vice versa. I have reverted your changes which interfered with this. Additionally, your changes were no doubt made from a low screen resolution setting perspective. If possible, attempt to make changes that are more resolution setting neutral.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Erhard Mösslacher[edit]I'm not sure if Mösslacher qualifies for the posthumous Knight's Cross. He is listed as a recipient on 9 February 1945. He was last seen on the 12 and/or 13th February before the 2nd breakout of Budapest. Please check your sources too. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Talkback[edit]![]() You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Pmlinediter (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Anzac[edit]Sorry for budding in but the error was in the template itself. I fixed it and you should be able to make the changes now. the template is called template:Anzac and not template:ANZAC. That makes a difference. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Italian divisions[edit]Yes, I can see the template, but the forms used run contrary to the WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME guideline and both English and Italian unit naming practices, which require the ordinal indicator to be included too. It should be 33rd Infantry Division (Italy) or Italian 33rd Infantry Division Acqui or some similar combination if we want to accommodate the name too. Leaving that aside, please retain the piped links. Regards, Constantine ✍ 21:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Italian Divisions[edit]Hi Jim, thanks for doing all that work with the Italian Divisions. As for the Divisional Insignia... that is a problem. I do not know if there is a online source that has them, BUT there is an editor, who probably has them all! His contributions to commons are in excess of 10,000 Coat of Arms (i.e. the last few days) and I got the info about the Regimental Coat of Arms of the Italian Army from him (all as huge scanned images). I am sure he has all of the divisional insignia and I left him a note on his commons talkpage about your request. all the best and happy Easter, --noclador (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you[edit]
Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS[edit]Hi, I have a question regarding two KC recipients of the Waffen-SS, Karl-Heinz Gieseler and Heinrich Halbeck. Both are listed in Walther-Peer Fellgiebel's book but not in Scherzer's work (Halbeck without a first name). What irretates me, is that normally Scherzer takes a position on why a person should be delisted. In these two instances he make no reference what so ever (maybe I overlooked something). Do you happen to have some background on them? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Hello. Contrary to your apparent belief, the MoS allows hardcoding image sizes for the purposes of visibility, impact and layout, and does not require that all images be left uncoded to allow individual preferences to control them. The visual appearance of an article is just as important as its content, and we all should take care that the overall visual impact of our product is serving our readers well -- all of our readers, including those who do not have accounts and cannot set image preferences. Please do not reflexively uncode images, especially when editors have taken pains to size and position them in a way that contributes to the aesthetics of the page. If you have specific problems with how specific images have been handled, that should be discussed on the article talk page, but mass uncoding of image size is not appropriate.Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 11:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Trento[edit]Hi Jim, I have just gone over the Trento article and added in the missing refs however i cannot locate 'Bauer, p.121'. Since your the only guy to have really overhauled the article i presumme you will know where it turned up from? If so can you add in the book info to the ref section? Cheers.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
20 Infantry Division Friuli[edit]You are welcome :-) as the Friuli is one of the six Italian division that fought the Axis forces the Italian Army maintains a page about the Friuli - so I just had to translate the text :-) as I was already working on the Friuli I expanded the Friuli Air Assault Brigade article; if you have time to check for grammar errors I would appreciate that very much; as for the divisional insignia: I knew the one of the Friuli, as it can be found on the Italian Armys homepage - some other divisions have the same kind of color and style (with changing name and number); however I do not know which of the Infantry divisions has a different color and therefore I am still waiting for the user I told you about last time as he is currently trying to find a book about the Regio Esercitos divisional insignias. --noclador (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC) re: Otto Becher[edit]Thanks Jim! I thought I had checked the tool box for disambigs, but I obviously haven't. Thanks for that, mate, I'll go and fix them now. Although, the disambig to gunnery is actually the one I wanted as it provides the necessary definition. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC) ) OOB[edit]Before we start reverting each other, let me clarify my previous statement: the Italian and Greek OOBs as they stood before the invasion are already given in the main article (not as a list, but as part of the text), while the OOB you have added refers only to the Italian side and is of a far later date, hence out of context and misleading, unless it is elaborated upon. Without a corresponding Greek OOB, without a clarification of its later date, and without moving it in a chronologically correct position, the list provides a wrong ppicture and unbalances the article. Also, since in general lists are to be avoided, a list as long as that one should be avoided either way, and the information contained in it integrated into the text somehow. PS. I intend to expand the article in the following weeks, and there may be need to give the changed OOBs of both sides as they had developed, at least by March 1941 (the Spring Offensive). Perhaps however it would be more useful if we could create an article on the OOBs, showcasing their development in stages, say from before the war (as included in text, but with more info on Greek side, and Italian forces in Dodecanese), on Nov 14, and on Mar 9. Constantine ✍ 10:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Italian Knight's Cross recipients[edit]Hi, I noticed that you've been heavily involved in expanding the Italian WW II pages. I was wondering if you happen to come across more information on the Italian Knight's Cross recipients (see List of foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross). It would be nice if you could add a little information on them if you happen to stumble across something. I've been busy working on the Werner Mölders article. If you have time please correct my English. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Forlììììììììì division[edit]Ciao, thanks much for adding that useuful article on the obscure (I also didn't know it!) Italian Forlì Division. Just, if you're dealing with other articles on Italian units, notice that Forli, without the accent, is comething rather different than Forlì (wht the accent), even if in English this could be not noticed as your pronounciation is bizarre. Let me know if you need help on Italian matters and names again. Ciao and good work!! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC) British 2nd Division[edit]By all means re-add the orders of battle; but preferably after the relevant sections in the formation's history. I do not believe that a soup of unit names and titles necessarily conveys any sense of history, or significance to anyone not already well acquainted with the intricacies of British regimental numbering and designations. There is no need to add orders of battle to the discussion page for "safe keeping", they can be retrieved from the article history for many months or years yet before any of the history is archived. HLGallon (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC) The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)[edit]This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC) The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)[edit]The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. A Class reviews[edit]I'm not sure about adding images. Do you have a suggestion about placement and what images to add? I fear that it may ruin the entire layout, something I want avoid until it gets explicitly addressed. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC) Awards[edit]Hey that's nice of you. Thanks! How do you come up with these ideas? MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fountain of Time/archive2[edit]Since you participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Fountain of Time, you might want to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fountain of Time/archive2.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC) WikiChevrons[edit]
All help with this and related topics appreciated, because, well, let me put it this way: I have, in my possession, an old GCSE (ages 15 to 16) history textbook and quite frankly it is superior to Wikipedia in pretty much all areas. I've added a little (more when I get more time), but as I said, it's great to have some input from you, as such an experienced editor. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 09:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
... and yet that doesn't really account for the civil/military divide. Your thoughts? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 11:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/History of the United Kingdom during World War I ![]() WWII Italian Divisions Strength[edit]hmm,... I just saw the footnotes about the divisions strength you put on the Italian divisions pages; the problem is the numbers are wrong! Divisions nominally had exactly 13,500 men. In reality the numbers changed between 8,000 and 18,000 depending on where and when and for what a division was employed. I have looked up the official nominal strength of an Infantry division:
in total the strength is exactly 13,500 - but I doubt that a division ever had this exact number (i.e. the divisions in Russia were all around 17,500 men and the ones in Yugoslavia way below that number). What to do now with this information,... I don't know - as it is: you are now the expert about Italian WWII divisions :-) --noclador (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
101. Honi Légvédelmi Vadászrepülő Osztály[edit]I just wanted to thank you for your efforts about this WW2 article. Cheers, Kurfürst (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC) DYK for The United Kingdom in World War I[edit]Carabinieri[edit]Hi Jim, over at the Carabinieri a POV warrior keeps on inserting a factually wrong, biased and original research based sentence [3] - after his first edit [4] I rewrote the entire paragraph [5]; but well obviously he is stubborn (and I suspect a return of another horrible POV warrior [6][7][8]). Could you please keep an eye on the article too? thanks, --noclador (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
History of the British Army during the Victorian Era[edit]I am sorry that you and I have once again clashed over the structure and/or content of an article, but hopefully this can be resolved. When I first created the article, I divided the history into roughly three periods, given the long timeline. The first period covered the long stagnation from the end of the Napoleonic Wars to the Crimean War; the second, the Crimean War and the Indian Rebellion of 1857, when it was clear that reform was needed but nothing immediately happened; the third, the Cardwell and subsequent reforms. When you merged the periods into one timeline but instead sections on Organisation, and campaigns and so on, I believe some of the internal consistency was lost. An analogy would be to do away with articles on the British Army in World War I and the British Army in World War II, and instead create an article on the British Army in the 20th Century, in which the Battle of the Somme and Operation Overlord were lumped together into a section on "Operations in France", and the creation of new corps and regiments (such as the Parachute Regiment) were combined with the draw-down from the 1990s onwards in a single "Organisation" section which left the reader confused as to the contexts in which these creations or amalgamations were made. While I welcome your additions of links and corrections to some of my facts and syntax, I believe that losing the natural breaks in continuity, in particular the pre- and post-Cardwell states, also lost some clarity. I hope we can work together to improve the article. HLGallon (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Billy the fish[edit]Hey, thanks for the comment about the William Windsor (goat), and that link :-) Billy has been in the news quite a bit - see the DYK nomination here. Cheers! Chzz ► 16:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Rescue[edit]Jim: I see you made a change in response to my question about "rescue," but I am still left wondering. Was their a plan to "rescue" the family (like the rescue the following year) or simply a plan to offer them asylum. The present para leaves me thinking someone proposed a daring "rescue" for the Romanovs and the king vetoed it. Or did he just oppose asylum? Hartfelt (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Question re dec of war[edit]Jim: In the US, Congress declares war. Did Asquith himself declare war (as is stated in your article) or was this done by the Parliament, the King, the Cabinet? Just raises a quesiton in my mind about the precision of the statement and the scope of the PM's powers. Also, as previosuly suggested, I think that the article would benefit from giving some more info and perspective about all the MPs who served in uniofrm. DId they have to resign from Parliament? What was the total during the war? Who the most impt (Chirchill)? Hartfelt (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
OOB of Trieste Division[edit]May I ask why my edits were undone? The article now contains wrong ( The cited text was removed since the organisation it describes is unlikely to ever have applied to Trieste, which was not an ordinary infantry division. I can e.g. not find any information confirming it ever had a Blackshirt formation, and it certainly did not have one in North Africa. 79.74.113.219 (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC) That's why I moved it, it was confusing before. 79.74.113.219 (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC) British Army during World War I[edit]![]() You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Autotrasportabile is NOT the same as motorised[edit]I note you believe that autotrasportabile is the same as motorised ((cur) (prev) 09:39, 9 April 2009 Jim Sweeney (talk | contribs) m (5,506 bytes) (moved 17 Infantry Division Pavia to 17 Motorised Division Pavia: correct name) (undo) ). It is not. The Italian army used two different words for two different things for a reason. Autotrasportabile means that a division could be moved by truck by virtue of its organisation, but that it did not have the transport capacity as part of its own structure to do so, i.e. it would depend on transport being made available to it by higher headquarters to be moved by truck (this was the same system as was used by the British army for its infantry divisions in the war. Motorised means that a division was fully equipped with trucks sufficient to transport it. Therefore the correct name of e.g. Pavia in English would be "truck moveable", not "motorised". http://niehorster.orbat.com/019_italy/40_organ/div_autotrans_40as.html I therefore think that all the articles about the North African infantry divisions should be renamed accordingly, in order to avoid giving the wrong impression. 79.74.113.219 (talk) 07:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Long, Long trail website[edit]Jim, I've responded to your query about regarding this as an RS at the noticeboard, WP:RSN#The Long, Long Trail. In my view there are sufficient reasons to consider it as such, as I've explained there. I think I'd previously put something to this effect on the MilHist Britsh Work Group page. David Underdown (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC) |