Template talk:Armies of the Soviet Army

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Russia: History / Military This template is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion. This template is supported by the history of Russia task force. This template is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force. Soviet Union This template is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Military history: Russian & Soviet This template 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. Associated task forces: /  Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

Air Defence Armies

Why the names of the Air Defence Armies are given mainly in German? --Brand спойт 11:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Horse armies?

Just noticed this :o) Konnaya, if taken literally would be Stallion Armies, however the Konnaya Armiya was composed of Kavaleriyskiye chasti, or Cavalry units, so maybe in this case the Armies can be Cavalry even if not strictly true to translation. After all we would not want to be sexist ;o)--mrg3105mrg3105 08:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I wonder at you Mrg. The rule is, Be Bold - just fix it, especially in the case of low profile things like this. I'm just about to change it to Cavalry Armies as per most English translations. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to tinker with other people's work without permission, and you have done a LOT of work on this template, for which I'm grateful. Believe it or not I would much rather discuss things because in discussion I usually learn something...though sometimes it is something I would rather have avoided on occasions :o) I had training in arguing, so if the counter-posing view is at all logic and evidence based, I will either prevail or admit I am wrong (if proven)--mrg3105mrg3105 09:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]