Talk:Soviet Air Defence Forces

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Aviation (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
 

What is the English translation of Strany? (is it Страни?) Michael Z. 2005-01-22 16:54 Z

I think it's "country", jguk 07:51, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ah. Like Ukrainian proty-vozdushna oborona storony? Michael Z. 2005-01-27 08:18 Z

Voyska PVOSoviet Air Defense[edit]

This is an English-language encyclopedia, and the articles must normally have English-language titles, unless the term is widely used in native spelling (or English term is absent). KGB is the latter case. Voyska PVO is not. "Soviet Air Defense" is a valid English term. "Voyska PVO" gives miserable 124 google hits, half of them being wikiarticle mirrors/reuses.

Category:Military of the Soviet Union has subcategories category:Soviet Air Force, category:Soviet Navy, not category:VVS, category:VMS; also Russian Ground forces, not Pekhotnye Voyska Rossiyskoy Federatsii or whatever (I am not military guy). Mikkalai 20:09, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Support, but I can change my opinion upon compelling arguments against. Mikkalai 20:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • User:N328KF Opposes my move (reverted it, commenting: It was definitely better known as either Voyska PVO or PVO Strany, even to English speakers.). Mikkalai 20:20, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Reiterate opposition as noted above. We have KGB, which was the more well-known term. That is the case here also. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:30, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
  • Support, tentatively. Shouldn't that be Soviet Air Defence Forces, or Soviet Air Defence Force, to include Voyska in the translation? Michael Z. 2005-01-22 16:54 Z

I solved this one easily by moving it to Soviet Air Defence. No need to bother an admin at all, jguk 21:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • No, you cannot do so, unless you want an edit war. Please wait for voting. Mikkalai 21:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • It's been done already, and why would it cause an edit war? violet/riga (t) 21:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And while we are here: what is the preference: defence (British) or defense? Mikkalai 21:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are a few defense articles but there is no real preference, as long as it's consistent within the article. violet/riga (t) 21:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Try to solve a housekeeping task quickly, and someone decides to undo it and argue over the point some more! Well, that was worthwhile! jguk 21:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There is no big rush here. All names are accessible. We can talk for a reasonably long time. Mikkalai 22:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And I've redone it - I don't understand why Mikkalai would request a move to a similar name and then complain when it's done. Please explain. violet/riga (t) 21:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And you should not have done this. Have some respect to the opposite opinion, please. Mikkalai 22:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
But you supported the move?! How can it be an opposite opinion? What is wrong with the move? violet/riga (t) 22:06, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Regardless of why this was posted here, please don't move an article while it's move is under discussion. But thanks for making the reason self-evident! Michael Z. 2005-01-22 16:54 Z
A valid point, though I don't agree with the use of WP:RM as a discussion page (as per the talk page). violet/riga (t) 22:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
When in doubt, go with the Canadian: defence. Michael Z. 2005-01-22 16:54 Z
  • Support "defense". An additional bonus is, using "Soviet" allows to distiguish it from the post-Soviet time/space. Humus sapiensTalk 08:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. A few English-speaking academics only use Voyska PVO in their tracts to pretensiously show off that they know Russian in a field where most of those involved know Russian with some level of respectable proficiency. Mention the Russian name in the text, but there's no reason to render the many of us who aren't proficient in Russian or the Russian names for these things trying to find it. KGB is the only exception to this rule. The status quo is about as ridiculous as saying we should rename the USSR article to CCCP. —ExplorerCDT 15:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Interesting site[edit]

with Google images http://geimint.blogspot.com/2007/07/identifying-tactical-sam-systems.html --mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 01:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Commanders of PVO[edit]

I think the OCR went a bit funny there, but the name you added is wrong (and unpronounceable!). Try this site http://old.vko.ru/pdf/2006/27/chief.pdf --mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 03:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC) The name, from Feskov et al, is K A Пгшпников. I knew it sounded funny, but what am I to do? Buckshot06 (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Feskov et al has some factual errors and some OCR errors which are easier to spot. In this case if you can't pronounce it for lack of vowels, its probably an OCR error. If you ever need to verify a mane (and obtain biographical data) you can use this site http://www.biografija.ru/default.aspx --mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 03:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)